Can a Christian Reject Evolution

Genesis 1 names its Creator in the first sentence and never gives the age of the earth. That pattern answers most of the question this study addresses: what Scripture requires a Christian to believe about origins. The creation texts require you to confess that God made everything, that humanity bears his image, and that what he made was good. They do not state a date. Faithful readers disagree about what the days, the genealogies and the biological means imply. The work of this study is learning to tell what the text asserts from what readers infer.

You can use the guide alone in about an hour, or with a group over one longer session. You will need a Bible open to Genesis 1-2 and something to write with. Along the way you will meet one specific position, that of biochemist Fazale Rana of Reasons to Believe, who holds an old earth and rejects the claim that unguided evolution explains life. His view is treated here as one reading to test against the text, not as the answer.

Before you read: name what you were handed

Write one sentence describing what you currently believe about the age of the earth and how humans came to be. Then write a second sentence answering this: did you reach that view by studying it, or did you receive it from a parent, pastor, teacher or class? If you are leading a group, let people keep these sentences private. No one should have to announce a position in the first five minutes.

Read Genesis 1:1-2:3 as one passage

The first creation account runs from Genesis 1:1 to 2:3. The chapter break falls in the middle of the seventh day. Read the whole unit aloud once without stopping. Then read it again with these observations in front of you:

• Mark every time you see “And God said.” What follows each one?
• Mark each refrain about evening and morning. Where does it appear, and where is it missing?
• Notice what God does besides make things. Where does he separate, name, bless or rest?
• Look at Genesis 1:2. What condition is the earth in before the first day begins?

Genesis 1:2 says, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” The first three days seem to answer formlessness by separating light from dark, waters from waters, sea from land. The next three seem to answer emptiness by filling those spaces with lights, creatures of sea and sky, and land creatures and humanity. Many readers across traditions notice this pattern. What they disagree about is what the pattern is for.

That disagreement is a question of genre. Genesis 1 is narrative, but unusually ordered and repetitive. One reader sees a sequence of ordinary days told in order. Another sees a structured presentation whose main purpose is to show who made the world and why. The text does not label itself, so honest readers have to weigh the clues.

Four observations with large consequences

What the first verse claims

Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” There was a beginning, God is its author, and nothing in the heavens or the earth stands outside his making. Every faithful reading of origins starts here. A view that removed God as Creator would leave this verse behind. A view that disagrees about timing has not.

How the word “day” behaves

Look at Genesis 1:5: “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” In one verse, “day” already does two jobs. It names the light as opposed to the darkness, and it names a numbered unit that includes evening and morning.

Now turn to Genesis 2:4: “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” Here “in the day” covers the whole work of creation just described. The same word stretches to mean a time or occasion.

This shows the word can carry more than one sense. It does not prove the days of Genesis 1 were long ages. The numbering, the refrain and the link to a working week push many readers toward ordinary days. Exodus 20:11 is the strongest support for that reading: “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” A reader who holds an old earth has to explain this verse. A reader who holds ordinary days has to explain why the sun, the usual marker of a day, is not made until the fourth day. Both sides have real work to do.

What the genealogies can and cannot carry

Genesis 5 and 11 list fathers, sons and ages, and adding those numbers is the main way some readers arrive at a young earth. The question is whether the lists were meant to be complete. Compare Matthew 1:8, which says Joram begat Ozias, with 2 Kings 8-15, where several kings come between them. Biblical genealogies can skip generations. That does not prove Genesis 5 and 11 skip any, since those chapters add ages that Matthew’s list does not. It does mean the arithmetic rests on an assumption the text never states.

What the text says about humanity

Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” The verse says three times that God created, twice that he did so in his image, and insists that both male and female bear it. It does not define the image as a list of abilities or describe the physical process by which the first humans came to be.

Genesis 2:7 tells the same event from closer in: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” These are the verbs of a craftsman and a giver of breath. Christians read the verse anywhere from a literal account of one moment to a portrait of humanity’s dependence on God and kinship with the ground. Every one of those readings keeps the theological claim: humans are made, they are earthly, and their life comes from God.

The readings faithful Christians hold

• Young-earth creation reads the six days as ordinary days and the genealogies as continuous enough to place creation in the relatively recent past. It takes Exodus 20:11 as decisive.
• Old-earth creation accepts that the earth and the history of life are very old, while holding that God acted directly at key points, including the creation of humanity.
• Evolutionary creation holds that God created life, including the human body, through evolution, and remains fully Creator and Lord over that process.

Some Christians also read Genesis 1 chiefly as a literary presentation of God’s work, without pressing it for a timeline at all. That reading can combine with more than one view above. What all of these positions share is exactly what the text states most plainly: God is the Creator, humanity bears his image, and creation was made good. Where they part is where the text speaks less plainly.

One reading tested: Fazale Rana’s case

Rana describes himself as an old-earth creationist, and his path there did not run away from science. He says it was “my work in biochemistry as a graduate student that convinced me that there had to be a creator,” after years as an agnostic. He accepts the long history of life. What he disputes is what he calls “the grand claim, that evolution can explain everything in biology.”

His reading of human origins depends on Genesis 1:27. Asked about fossil creatures such as Neanderthals, Homo erectus and the specimen nicknamed Lucy, Rana says he views them as real creatures God made, with some limited intelligence and emotional capacity, that later went extinct. What they lacked, in his words, was “a quality that only human beings have,” which he identifies as the image of God.

Here is the exegetical test. Genesis 1:27 clearly says humanity bears God’s image. It does not say which fossil creatures did or did not. Treating the image as the line between humans and every other creature is a reasonable inference, and it fits the text’s emphasis on humanity’s distinct creation. It is still an inference. An evolutionary creationist affirms Genesis 1:27 just as fully and places the gift of the image differently. Rana’s further claim, that the hominin fossils show no clear path to humanity, is his scientific assessment, and other scientists, including Christians, read those fossils differently.

The hardest pressure point: death before the fall

Rana’s view has a cost the text raises directly. If the earth is old, animals lived and died for long ages before any human sinned. Genesis 1:31 says, “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” Romans 5:12 says, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” Romans 8:19-22 describes the whole creation subjected to futility and waiting for release, and verse 22 says, “For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.”

Young-earth readers take these passages to mean that no death of any kind existed before Adam’s sin, which rules out an old earth with a fossil record. Old-earth and evolutionary readers note that Romans 5:12 speaks of death passing “upon all men,” and argue Paul’s subject is human death. They read Romans 8 as describing creation’s present bondage without fixing when it began. Rana recalls that Darwin himself rejected a creator who would work through a world that looked so cruel. Every reading of origins has to answer that same objection from Scripture, and this is where the debate is most demanding.

Questions for discussion

1. Which claims are shared by all the readings above? Which disputed claims seem most important to you, and why?
2. Genesis 1:5 and 2:4 use “day” in different senses. Does that make the ordinary-day reading less likely, or only less certain? What would it take to decide?
3. Rana treats the image of God as the dividing mark between humanity and every other creature. What does Genesis 1:26-27 connect the image to, and what does it leave unsaid?
4. Which verse in Genesis 1-2 would you use to test Rana’s inference about the hominins, and does it support, undercut or simply not address his view?
5. Read Romans 5:12-19 in full. Is Paul’s subject all death, or human death? Point to the words in the passage that decide your answer.
6. The genealogy observation depends on comparing Matthew 1:8 with 2 Kings. Does that comparison transfer to Genesis 5 and 11, where ages are given? Why or why not?

A practice: restate each reading until its holder would sign it

This exercise trains the skill this topic most needs: reading a position fairly before deciding about it.

1. Make three columns: young earth, old earth, evolutionary creation.
2. Under each, write one sentence stating the view so its most careful defender would accept it. Avoid any word its holders would find insulting.
3. Under each, list the verses from this guide the view explains easily, then the verses it has to work harder to explain. Use at least Genesis 1:5, Genesis 2:4, Exodus 20:11, Genesis 1:27 and Romans 5:12.
4. Circle the claims all three columns share.
5. Write down what kind of evidence would change your own mind, whether a textual observation, a scientific finding, or both.

In a group, assign each column to people who do not hold that view. Have each set read its restatement aloud, and invite anyone who does hold that view to say whether it is fair. The goal is accuracy, not winning.

Then carry the practice past the session. Lisa Fields observes that “so many students are intimidated by their professors or what’s in their books, and so when it comes to faith, they kind of surrender their faith because of the information.” That surrender often assumes Genesis stands or falls with one answer about dates and mechanisms. Close reading changes that by separating what the text asserts from what a reader has inferred. This week, when you hear a confident claim about origins from a textbook, a sermon or a video, write it down and sort it into one of those two columns before you decide whether you agree.