THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF EVOLUTION AND CHRISTIANITY

By Jared C. Wellman

“God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He
created them.”
-Genesis 1:271

On October 23, 1996, while speaking to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences at the

Vatican, Pope John Paul II stated, “[evolution] has been proven true; we always celebrate natures

factuality, and we look forward to interesting discussions of theological implications.”2 This

comment may come as a surprise to the modern day Protestant; however, it is important to note

that John Paul II was only reiterating what Pope Pius XII had stated nearly fifty years earlier:

“In his encyclical ‘Humani Generis’ (1950) my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there

was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of faith about man and his vocation.”3

Pope Pius XII wrote,

The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present
state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men
experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it
inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter –for
the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.4

1
All subsequent Scripture references are taken from the New American Standard Bible (NASB) unless
otherwise noted.
2
Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger, Philosophy of Religion
(Oxford: Oxford Press, 2007), 555.
3
Ibid., 554.
4
Ibid., 553.

1
 2

This is an important quote because, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the

church’s interpretation of Scripture is authoritative. Article II, Section 85 of the Catechism

reads, “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written

form or in the form of Tradition,5 has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church

alone. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishop.”6 This is to say

that both Pope Pius and John Paul’s statements regarding evolution are understood as the official

Catholic, and sometimes church’s, stance on God’s creation of man.

Regarding this, the late Stephen Gould wrote, “Sincere Christians must now accept

evolution, not merely as a plausible possibility, but also as an effectively proven fact.”7 Gould

illustrates this statement with the following story,

I am often asked whether I ever encounter creationism as a live issue among my Harvard
undergraduate students. I reply that only once, in thirty years of teaching, did I experience
such an incident. A very sincere and serious freshman student came to my office with a
question that had clearly been troubling him deeply. He said to me, “I am a devout Christian
and have never had any reason to doubt evolution, an idea that seems both exciting and well
documented. But my roommate, a proselytizing evangelical, has been insisting with
enormous vigor that I cannot be both a real Christian and an evolutionist. So tell me, can a
person believe both in God and in evolution?” Again, I gulped hard, did my intellectual
duty, and reassured him that evolution was both true and entirely compatible with Christian
belief – a position that I hold sincerely, but still an odd situation for a Jewish agnostic.8

5
Tradition here is best described in Article II, Section 78 of the Catechism: This living transmission,
accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely
connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every
generation all that she herself is, all that she believes. The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving
presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief
and her prayer."
6
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism.htm. Emphasis added.
7
Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger, Philosophy of Religion
(Oxford: Oxford Press, 2007), 555.
8
Ibid., 550. Emphasis added.
 3

This is the issue that this paper wishes to examine. Can an individual be both “a real Christian

and an evolutionist? Can a person believe both in God and in evolution? Is there any real reason

for the Christian to doubt evolution?” For Gould, the answers are yes, yes and no. He writes,

“Creationism does not pit science against religion, for no such conflict exists. [Furthermore],

creationism does not raise any unsettled intellectual issues about the nature of biology or the

history of life.”9 I agree with Gould in this notion, however, I disagree with his aforementioned

statement that “evolution [is] both true and entirely compatible with Christian belief.” The

problem is rooted in the word, “entirely.” There is reason for the Christian to doubt evolution.

To extract this argument, Alvin Plantinga’s proposition that theism and evolutionism are

“not incompatible”10 will be assessed. Additionally, I will analyze the Genesis account of

creation as it relates to man and propose that there is no proper contextual or exegetical way to

interpret the account as suggesting the evolution of man. The final proposition will be that while

there indeed is no issue in the cohesiveness of religion and science, or even in theism and

evolution, there is an issue in the compatibility of Christianity and evolution.

The Age of Science

In his work, Faith and Reason, Paul Helm notes that “the twentieth century has seen the

rise of scientific speculation which claims, in effect, that in certain areas scientific findings can

and have supplanted traditional metaphysical reasoning.”11 Helm means that, according to

science, the nature of our reality is best explained by the scientific method, as opposed to faith in

9
Ibid.
10
This is the way Plantinga states his argument. This paper, when referring to this, will state the argument
in this fashion.
11
Paul Helm. Faith and Reason (Oxford: Oxford, 1999), 260.
 4

a theistic deity. Today, the scientific method is still viewed as the best way to gain knowledge.

The twenty-first century has only solidified science as the best, and sometimes only, method to

answer questions about our origin.

Helm further notes, “it is claimed [that] science has shown faith [in God] to be misplaced

and unnecessary.”12 This implies that science is the notion, and only notion, that is placed and is

necessary, and consequently, faith is unreasonable. Moreover, the implication is that science has

become so dominant, that not only is faith considered unreasonable, it is unnecessary.

Richard Dawkins is a renowned advocate of this kind of science, and more specifically,

the science of evolutionism. In his article, Doomed Rivals, he wrote, “Modern theologians of

any sophistication have given up believing in instantaneous creation. The evidence for some sort

of evolution has become too overwhelming.”13 This is Dawkins’s way of suggesting that science

has conclusively defeated any notion of faith, especially faith in a divine being. Helm furthers

this in saying,

It is a characteristic of some proponents of Darwinian evolution, as of Darwin himself, to

argue that the fact of random natural selection excludes the possibility of divine design, and
also to claim that human rationality and sensibility are the products of the processes of
random mutation in environments which are sufficiently favourable.14

While Dawkins is considered by many as the leading proponent of evolutionism, he does

not stand alone. Alvin Plantinga has said, “Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and

Christopher Hitchens are the four horsemen of atheism.”15 Each man has contributed to the idea

12
Ibid.
13
Ibid., 263.
14
Ibid., 261.
15
This quote was derived from Dr. Plantinga’s message in the Criswell College’s chapel service on March
26, 2009. The entire message can be heard on the Criswell College podcast via Itunes.
 5

that religion cannot coexist with science. Dennett, for example, in his book, Darwin’s

Dangerous Idea, wrote, “Darwin’s idea is powerful… it promises to put our most cherished

visions of life on a new foundation.”16 For Dennett, the “most cherished vision of life” was God,

and the “new foundation” is evolution. He writes,

We used to sing a lot when I was a child…One of my favorite songs was “Tell Me Why.”

Tell me why the stars do shine,

Tell me why the ivy twines,
Tell me why the sky’s so blue,
Then I will tell you, just why I love you.

Because God made the stars so shine,

Because God made the ivy twine,
Because God made the sky so blue,
Because God made you, that’s why I love you.

This straightforward, sentimental declaration still brings a lump to my throat—so sweet, so

innocent, so reassuring a vision of life! And then comes along Darwin and spoils the
picnic!17

Of course, Dennett, here, was being facetious, for he further writes,

Or does he? From the moment of the publication of Origin of the Species in 1859, Charles
Darwin’s fundamental idea has inspired intense reactions ranging from ferocious
condemnation to ecstatic allegiance, sometimes tantamount to religious zeal. Darwin’s
dangerous idea cuts much deeper into the fabric of our most fundamental beliefs than many
of its sophisticated apologists have yet admitted. God is, like Santa Claus, a myth of
childhood, not anything a sane, undeluded adult could literally believe in. That God must be
turned into a symbol for something less concrete, or abandoned altogether.18

It is clear that Dawkins and Dennett, among others, see science and religion as

incompatible. Alvin Plantinga, however, disagrees with this proposition. Plantinga states that

16
Daniel Dennett Darwin’s Dangerous Idea (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995), 11.
17
Ibid., 17.
18
Ibid. 17-18.
 6

evolution does not disavow religion or the belief in a divine being. What is incompatible,

however, is naturalism and religion.

Plantinga’s Argument: Theism and Evolution are not Incompatible

Alvin Plantinga sees a difference between evolution and naturalism. He writes,

“Naturalism is the view that there is no such person as God or anything like God. So taken, it is

stronger than atheism.”19 Plantinga further defines naturalism as “natural selection winnowing

some form of genetic variation (random genetic variation).”20 It is the modus operandi of

unguided modification. In naturalism, “modifications take place in a process of random genetic

variations, because there exists something within the mechanism that believes the modification

to be good or bad.”21 John Moore extends this idea in answering the question, “Is there a

difference between evolution and [naturalism]?”22 He writes,

The term “evolution” is employed repeatedly by professional scientists in metaphysical

expressions about first-origin questions. As stated, they do so essentially as natural
philosophers who commonly fail to use the prefixes macro- and micro-. In contrast the
term [“naturalism”] is a rubric for a most widely accepted and utilized worldview as a
philosophy or frame of reference to organize one’s outlook about all reality.23

For Plantinga, naturalism is incompatible with theistic faith. Evolution, on the other hand, is

compatible with theistic faith.

19
Alvin Plantinga Naturalism vs. Evolution: A Religion/Science Conflict? 1.
20
Alvin Plantinga Content and Natural Selection 1.
21
Alvin Plantinga Naturalism vs. Evolution: A Religion/Science Conflict? 1.
22
Ronald Youngblood, The Genesis Debate (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1990), 96. The original term
used in the question is evolutionism. After comparing the use of this term with Plantinga’s naturalism, it appeared
that both meant the same thing, and to dissuade any ambiguity, the word naturalism is substituted here for the sake
of argument.
23
Ibid.
 7

In a recent presentation at the Criswell College, Plantinga argued that “contemporary

evolutionary theory is not incompatible with belief in God.”24 Plantinga’s use of “God” here, is

understood as,

Any God included in the theistic religions: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and theistic varieties
of Hinduism and Buddhism, where theism is the belief that there is an all-powerful, all-
knowing perfectly good immaterial person who has created the world, has created human
beings ‘in His own image,’ and to whom we owe worship, obedience and allegiance.25

This is to say that any religion that holds faith in an all powerful being of any kind is compatible

with evolution. There are two points that I wish to argue here regarding Plantinga’s proposition.

First, Plantinga’s premise regarding “theistic religions” includes at least one religion whose

theistic belief naturally excludes it from being coupled with the others. Secondly, according to

the great Creeds of the church, and furthermore Scripture, Plantinga’s argument will be shown to

actually reveal evolution as incompatible to Christianity, rather than compatible.

On a radio broadcast that aired on March 27, 2009, Plantinga stated that each theistic

deity—Islam, Judaism, and Christianity—are not “different Gods, but the same God with

different interpretations.”26 In other words, each theistic religion does not have their own God,

they have the same God, with different understandings of who He is. Being uneducated in the

faiths of Islam and Judaism, I cannot sufficiently speak for them here.27 However, as a Christian,

and as an individual who has experienced many years of Christian education, I can safely say

24
Plantinga mentioned several times that he was “not endorsing theistic evolution, only arguing that it is not
logically incompatible.” Plantinga is, however, a theistic evolutionist.
25
Alvin Platinga Religion and Science 1. Emphasis added.
26
This is a summary of the comment made by Plantinga on Live from Criswell with Barry Creamer. A full
audio version of the broadcast is available via the podcast on Itunes.
 8

that the god of Islam is not the same God of Christianity. Furthermore, the god of Judaism is not

the same God of Christianity. Members of each faith would agree. This is well illustrated in the

following experience:

During a Mission Practicum trip in Israel, there were, among my group, some individuals
who made the statement, “The Jews (Judaizers) believe in the same God we do, they are just
confused.” Dr. Jim Sibley, our sponsor and professor, pulled the group aside and asked us
this question, “What is the nature of the Christian God?” The answer was, in this context,
“Triune.” This is to say that Christians believe that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A
Judaizer would not agree. For him, God is not Son, or, Jesus is not God. This is not just a
mere misunderstanding or interpretational issue regarding God in Plantinga’s triangle of
theism; it is a fundamental belief in the nature of the God one serves.28

This illustration only “tips the iceberg,” so to speak. Not only do Islam, Judaism, and

Christianity differ in their beliefs regarding the nature of their Gods, the sacred texts differ as

well. Each faith contains a different text that defines beliefs such as creation, God, and human

stewardship.29 The fundamental beliefs of each theistic religion are all entirely different, and

therefore, it is unreasonable to suggest that each religion is equivalent to the next. Moreover,

one needs to be careful in grouping these religions in order to argue the incompatibility of each

with evolution. Too many “strings” are attached that can suggest otherwise.

This is a hazardous consideration to Plantinga’s argument because it strips away the

specific connection that theism has with actual religions. One can argue that the theory of

evolution is not incompatible with theism, but when that theism is identified and connected to an

27
This is to say that I am uneducated in the sacred writings of each. (However, Judaism uses what
Christians consider the Old Testament. Being Christian, I am familiar with this text; however, I read it entirely
different due to the influence of the New Testament.)
28
This is a personal experience I had in the summer of 2006 on a Mission Practicum trip to Israel. It is used
to illustrate the difference in nature of Christianities God, and Judaism’s god. Sibley’s answer to the dilemma is
founded in Scripture, and therefore, represents that each theistic religion does not believe in the same God.
29
Islam uses the Quran to establish beliefs about God, Judaism uses the Tanakh, and Christianity uses the
Bible. Each text contains entirely different descriptions of who God is, and what His relationship is to man.
 9

actual religion, that religion’s theistic beliefs need to be addressed. Plantinga does well in his

argument that theistic religion is not incompatible to evolution, but if no theistic religion exists

that acknowledges this claim in its sacred text, then, the argument is ultimately worthless.

Theoretically, one could create a religion that contains a theistic god, but nothing would be

known about that god, and moreover, he would be creating the god, so the chances of the god

existing are slim at best.

In Plantinga’s argument, theistic beliefs are derived from Islam’s Quran, Judaism’s

Tanakh, and Christianity’s Bible. In the following, the theistic religion known as Christianity

will be examined, and furthermore, its Bible. This religion and its text will be examined in order

to see what it says regarding evolution. This notion leads to the second argument.

Plantinga, when arguing his proposition, stated that “Christianity is to be understood by

the great creeds of the church (which includes, but is not limited too): The Apostles Creed, the

Nicene Creed, the Belgic Confession, the Westminster Confession, and the Baptist Faith &

Message.”30 This is to say that these creeds should not, in any way, interfere with the argument

of compatibility, for they define part of the premise.

Of the Creeds mentioned, three of them speak directly on the creation of man. These are,

The Belgic Confession, The Westminster Confession, and the Baptist Faith and Message. Article

14 of The Belgic Confession is entitled The Creation and Fall of Man, and states, “We believe

that God created man from the dust of the earth and made and formed him in his image and

likeness.”31 Chapter IV of The Westminster Confession states, “After God had made all other

30
This quote was derived from Dr. Plantinga’s message in the Criswell College’s chapel service on March
26, 2009. The entire message can be heard on the Criswell College podcast via Itunes. Parenthesis added.
31
Belgic Confession, Article 14 The Creation and Fall of Man. (www.crcna.org/pages/belgic_articles)
 10

creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with

knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness after his own image.”32 Article III of The Baptist

Faith & Message 2000 states, “Man is the special creation of God, made in His own image.”33

Each creed surmises the same claim, that God “created man in His own image.” The

question then is raised concerning the interpretation of this claim. Generally speaking, the

Creeds can be interpreted in one of two ways. First, it can be taken that God created man “from

the dust of the earth,” which is to say, specially, or, not by evolution. Or second, it can be taken

that “after God made all other creatures, he created man,” and that this creation of man was by

the modification of genetic mutation, governed by God. The problem with this second

interpretation is that none of these “great Creeds of the church” suggest the idea of theistic

evolution. In fact, their explanations restrict this possibility. The Belgic Confession, for

example, states that man was “created from the dust of the earth.” This includes no element of

evolution, or even theistic evolution therein.

Before continuing, it is important to consider at least one decipherment of theistic

evolution. John Moore defined the belief when he wrote,

Proponents of “theistic evolution” are basically evolutionists. Support for this assertion is
found in the grammatical structure of the terminology. The word “theistic” is used as an
adjective that is descriptive of the word “evolution.” A “theistic evolutionist” is one who
desires, in some manner or degree, to add God to so-called naturalistic concepts, such as an
explosion of dense matter, or sudden and spontaneous appearance of living substance, or
emergence of human beings from animal ancestry.34

32
The Westminster Confession, Chapter IV On Creation. (www.reformed.org)
33
The Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Article III, Man. Emphasis added.
34
Youngblood, The Genesis Debate (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1990), 101-102.
 11

It is this claim, theistic evolution, that Plantinga argues is “not incompatible” with Christian

belief.

Upon examination, the “great Creeds of the church” define Christianity’s belief in the

creation of man far differently than a theistic evolutionist would. Plantinga referenced these

Creeds to support his argument, but upon analysis, the Creeds actually disparage his proposition.

This brings us to a revelation regarding Gould’s statement, which says, “evolution [is] both true

and entirely compatible with Christian belief.” It is impossible for evolution to be “entirely

compatible” with a religion who’s creeds—the articles that express the very beliefs of that

religion—dissuade, or more emphatically, restrict the notion of theistic evolution. Every Creed

mentioned by Plantinga that contains an article regarding the creation of man says nothing of

evolution, and everything of creationism.35 Furthermore, these Creeds open the discussion to

consider Scripture. Christianity is understood by the standard of the Holy Bible, not just by the

Creeds that define it. If an argument is going to be made regarding Christianity’s compatibility

with evolution, the Bible should be considered in the discussion.

Genesis on the Creation of Man

In the book, The Genesis Debate, the question is posed, “Was evolution involved in the

process of creation?” Mark Hillmer answers “yes.” He writes,

The idea that evolution was indeed involved in creation has escaped notice for centuries
because the cosmos appears to be changeless. But change there is, hidden behind a mask
of permanence due to a mind-boggling slowness. And it is more than merely substituting
the term creation for evolution. I stand with those who believe that the process in the
“great chain of being” is meaningful and purposeful and that it has a direction.36

35
Creationism is here is used to describe the art of God creating man specially, not by years of genetic
mutations.
36
Ronald Youngblood, The Genesis Debate (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1990), 86.
 12

For Hillmer, this conclusion was reached not because he happens to be an “expert in natural

science,” 37 but because of his education in Scripture. He writes, “My training is in Bible, and

though I have been looking over the shoulder of some scientists, most of what I will have to say

is on the nature of the biblical narrative and its implications.”38

For Hillmer, Genesis is an “ancient, confessional knowledge, largely expressed in

metaphor.”39 Hillmer writes,

Ancient literature may indeed express some things unforgettably well, but modern
scientific thought is not among the things addressed. To take an example from another
culture: For all that Plato and Aristotle contributed to philosophy and science, they can
hardly be expected to have much to say to the modern scientist in the laboratory. An
ancient document may be studied and revered. But to study and revere a text is one thing;
to make all reality conform to it is another.40

Hillmer does not see it as “fair to compare [Genesis] to documents written in the twentieth

century.”41 He asks, “Why do we expect Genesis to give clear guidance in matters of geology,

biology, and astronomy? I suppose one might expect full and final information on all things in

the Bible if one believed that the Bible were God’s last word. But what if the Bible is God’s first

word?”42 Unbeknownst to Hillmer, his propositions actually self-refute the very idea he is trying

to prove.

Hillmer sees Genesis as largely a metaphor, and the use of metaphor in the book is to

help advance the notion of evolution. Again, he is not an “expert in science,” but “trained in the

37
Ibid., 87.
38
Ibid.
39
Ibid. Emphasis added.
40
Ibid., 88.
41
Ibid., 89.
42
Ibid. To this I ask, “What if it is His everlasting Word?”
 13

Bible,” and “most of what [he says] is on the nature of the biblical narrative and its

implications.” The problem is, “Genesis, (apparently) [cannot] give guidance in matters of

biology.” This means that, even as a metaphor, Genesis could not be positively utilized to

include the possibility of evolution. In other words, Hillman is using a document to advance a

belief that he earlier claimed cannot be used! Furthermore, Hillman additionally weakens his

argument when he writes, “it is not fair to compare [Genesis] to documents written in the

twentieth century.” He illustrates, “no country would want its generals to wage war on the

pattern of fighting described in Homer’s Iliad. Again, one would hardly go to a medical doctor

if one discovered that the doctor was using methods described on Old Babylonian cuneiform

texts. Why do we expect Genesis to give clear guidance in [current day] matters?”43 Perhaps I

am misreading Hillman here, but it seems that he is comparing Genesis to Darwin’s Origin of the

Species, which is only one century shy of being a twentieth century document. If, for Hillman, it

is not fair to compare Genesis to modern-day documents, why does he compare it to Darwin?

Hillman believes that, “Genesis is not a textbook on astronomy.”44 I am assuming that the Origin

of the Species is.

If the Genesis account is not a metaphor, what then can it be? Tremper Longman III

elucidates this question by asking, “What kind of book is Genesis?”45 He further writes, “It

makes a world of difference whether we identify Genesis as myth, parable, history, legend or a

combination of these and other genres.”46 The reality is that there are as many answers to this

43
Ibid.
44
Ibid., 91.
45
Tremper Longman III, How to Read Genesis (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2005), 23.
46
Ibid.
 14

question as there are types of Scripture; however, there is only one other contextually legitimate

answer that has been posed, which is, that the account is historical-literal. Longman agrees. He

writes,

Genesis has a united narrative plot that takes the reader from the creation of the world to
the sojourn in Egypt. It recounts past events and does so with a clear chronological
structure. Much of the book is recounted using the so-called vav-consecutive verbal form
that is the basic characteristics of narrative in the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, the frequent
toledot47 formulas that structure the book also indicate a historical impulse.48

There are many commentators who agree with this genre of interpretation. To examine this, the

Genesis texts that speak specifically on the creation of man will be exhibited, and further

expounded. These Scriptures are,49

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them
rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the
earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own
image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them (Genesis
1:26-27).

Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life; and man became a living being (Genesis 2:7).

Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky,
and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called
a living creature, that was its name (Genesis 2:19).

So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one
of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The Lord God fashioned into a woman the
rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man (Genesis 2:21-22).

Again, each Scripture listed deals specifically with man, and respectively to the creation of man.

47
Ibid., 46. Longman writes regarding the toledot, “The most blatant evidence for sources is the so-called
toledotformulas. These are sentences that begin with the Hebrew phrase ‘elleh toledot, which has been translated in
‘these are the generations,’ ‘this is the family history’ and ‘this is the account.’
48
Ibid., 60.
49
Taken from the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. (Genesis passages only.)
 15

Of the texts mentioned, Genesis 2:7 seems to be the most straightforward regarding

God’s creation of man. In interpreting this verse, Kenneth Gangel and Stephen Bramer write,

This verse says that God formed the man from the dust of the ground. The Hebrew verb
for “formed” is commonly used of the work of a potter with clay (e.g., Job 33:6; Isa. 45:9;
Jer. 18:6). It conveys the idea of molding and shaping with careful, loving care. It is a new
word for Genesis. The Hebrew words used in the first account to describe the creation of
man and animals include “make” (asah) and “create” (bara) (Gen. 1:26-27). Here God
acts as the potter taking clay or soil and forming man. [Furthermore], man is a
combination of dust and divinity. Genesis 2:7 goes on to say that the Lord God breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being. It was God who
gave man a life unique to mankind. Animals had life too, but man had a portion of deity
within him because he was made “in the image of God.”50

Gangel and Bramer expound this verse well. Not only do the Hebrew verbs illuminate the true

meaning of the verse—that God created man specially, rather than by process or evolution—the

verse itself expresses that man is unique to animals, and that God Himself breathed life into man

in order for him to live. This interpretation leaves no room for the process of evolution.

Kenneth Matthews is another commentator who sees Genesis as a historical-literal

document. Matthews sees Genesis 2:7 as “God’s creative work [being] highly anthropomorphic.

[God] is depicted as an artisan who sculpts the man.”51 Regarding the “dust from the ground,”

Matthews writes, “[it] is the raw material from which the physical properties of the man had their

source. God is depicted as the potter who forms [man].”52

In both expositions, the commentators use the context of Genesis, and specifically of the

verse, in order that they may come to a proper understanding of what the Christian understanding

is of man. In the historical-literal genre, the surrounding passages, author’s intent, and original
50
Kenneth Gangel and Stephen Bramer, Holman Old Testament Commentary (Nashville: B&H Publishers,
2002), 26-27.
51
Kenneth A. Matthews, The New American Commentary – Genesis1-11:26 (Nashiville: B&H Publishers,
1996), 196.
52
Ibid.
 16

language are all considered in the interpretation. When Genesis is interpreted metaphorically,

none of these ingredients are considered, and thus, a weak understanding of the creation of man

is interpreted.

Conclusion

At the beginning of this paper, three questions were asked in order to carry the discussion

of this paper, which is portrayed in the question, “Are Evolution and Christianity Incompatible.”

The questions were, “Can an individual be both a real Christian and an evolutionist? Can a

person believe both in God and in evolution? Is there any real reason for the Christian to doubt

evolution?” For Stephen Gould, the answers were “yes, yes, and no.” For Alvin Plantinga, the

answers are the same as Gould’s. After examining Plantinga’s argument, and analyzing the

creeds and Scriptures of Christianity, my answers to these questions are, “yes, yes, and yes.”

For the first question, “can an individual be both a real Christian and an evolutionist,” I

answer “yes.” I answer “yes” because while incorrect, I do not see the belief as being grounds

for the termination of salvation in the believer. Jesus is the way by which man must be saved.

Man is often incorrect in many areas of theology, but a lack of belief in Christ is the only

theological concept that can keep one from eternal life. The Scriptures say, “any sin and

blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven”

(Matthew 12:31). “Blasphemy of the Spirit” is simply unbelief, and therefore, it is possible to be

a real Christian and also believe in evolution.

Regarding the second question, I again answer “yes.” The question closely mimics

question one, and states, “Can a person believe both in God and in evolution?” Again, while

believing in God—that is, the Christian God—and also believing in evolution is unsound, it is
 17

still possible. The belief is not enough to cause a man to fall from grace. The Scriptures say,

“Who will separate us from the love of Christ? I am convinced that neither [nothing] will be

able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:35a, 38-

39).

Finally, the third question asks, “Is there any real reason for the Christian to doubt

evolution?” In this, I part ways with Gould and Plantinga and further answer “yes.” Not only is

there any “real reason,” for a Christian to doubt the theory of evolution, there are “real reasons.”

These reasons are that the Creeds that define Christianity restrict evolution from being

considered as compatible with the religion, and more importantly, a correct exegetical

understanding of the Genesis account on the creation of man forbids the theory of evolution in

man of being compatible with Christianity.

To conclude, I can agree with Plantinga’s argument that “it is not incompatible for theism

and evolution to co-exist,” however, I cannot follow him in that “it is not incompatible for

Christianity and evolution to co-exist.” Christianity, in its most pure and true form, does not

leave any room for the theistic evolution of man. No Christian Scripture or Creed as much as

hints to this possibility. The notion of compatibility is nothing short of a compromise to what

science claims as truth. The Catholics are afraid of another religious-science embarrassment,

comparable to the early century claim that the sun revolved around the earth, rather than vice

versa. Galileo’s discovery haunts the Catholics and therefore, Scripture is compromised in the

theory of evolution rather than contextualized.

Lastly, it is important to remember that in Christian philosophy, the Bible must always

remain the standard by which all truth is measured. When one strays from this, philosophy has
 18

the potential of actually becoming a religion in and of itself, and moreover, a religion without a

standard to be measured. Wooddell’s statement regarding Scripture is sobering, “if the Bible

makes an affirmation, then that affirmation is true. If [one] sees what looks like a false statement

in Scripture, he gives the text the benefit of the doubt, assuming that he either does not have all

the information necessary to judge the claim at issue or has failed to read the text correctly.”53

Philosophically, many arguments (on the side of Christianity) have been developed

refuting evolution. While there are, standing in the gauntlet, “the four horsemen of atheism,”

there are on the other side, “the four horsemen of truth.” Two of these have already been

mentioned; “Scripture and Creed.” The other two are more physical, but still have brought much

mitigation to this ageless argument. These men are Michael Behe54 and Phillip Johnson.55

Johnson, in his book Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds writes this statement

regarding the Christian God,

I therefore put the following simple proposition on the table for discussion: God is our true
Creator. I am not speaking of a God who is known only by faith and is invisible to reason,
or who acted undetectably behind some naturalistic evolutionary process that was to all
appearances mindless and purposeless. That kind of talk is about the human imagination,
not the reality of God. I speak of a God who acted openly and who left his fingerprints all
over the evidence. Does such a God really exist, or is He a fantasy like Santa Claus?56

53
Douglas Blount and Joseph Wooddell, The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (Lanham: Rowman and
Littlefield Publishers, 2007), 3.
54
Behe has written valuable books arguing against the theory of naturalism, the most influential being
Darwin’s Black Box.
55
Johnson’s works regarding evolutionism and faith have been valuable to the Christian community. See
Darwin on Trial, The Wedge of Truth, Defeating Darwinism and Reason in the Balance.
56
Phillip Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1997), 23.
 19

For Johnson, “That is the subject of this book.”57 Here, it is the subject of this paper, and the

conclusion is evident; Christianity is inherently incompatible with evolution.

57
Ibid.