New Testament Commentary by a Mathematician book. | Site for researching all meanings of Hebrew Bible.


From Without Vowels Project
Jump to navigation Jump to search

(This is a partial draft.)

It is commonly thought that Bible is incompatible with (macro)evolution.

At this page we will collect biblical arguments pro and against evolution.

First, for every reader of Bible it should be clear that there was no "independent" evolution, but that the creation was guided by the Creator. It is clear from Gen 1:1 saying that the Spirit of God was hovering over the Earth. His purpose was clearly to guide the creation.

Biblical arguments

Next follow biblical arguments pro and contra evolution (together with counterarguments nearby). We should not put scientific arguments pro and contra evolution on this page because this would make this page too big and not manageable. Feel free however to add links to any materials both pro and contra evolution at the bottom of this page.

It is difficult to conclude whether God created the world in literal 7 days or in a longer period of time, using evolution. It is not just reading Genesis 1 and following your impression of it.

Biblical arguments against evolution

The first argument against evolution is: "It was created in 7 days and the days should be understood as literal seven days, because the word "day" is not used in Bible in a different sense (an arbitrary period of time)." First it is questionable whether the word "day" always means a literal day. Even if we find no evidence that "day" may mean a longer period of time, can we be completely sure about meaning of this word?

But there is the following support for the literal seven days. It is repeatedly said in Genesis that there was evening and there was morning. But if we saw Earth from the outside, we would see evening and morning all time at the sides of the Earth. It may mean just that during all these ages there were lighter and darker ends of the Earth.

The second argument against evolution is: grass was created on the third day but the lights (including Sun) in expanse of the sky appeared only at the fourth day. So opponents of evolution conclude that the grass was not able to grow without light. But it may be understood that before forth day the sky was covered by dense clouds and the Sun was just not visible. There was nevertheless enough light for plants to grow.

Gen. 1:30 says that before the Flood all animals were eating grass, and this contradicts to the scientific evolution theory. Counter-argument: Gen. 1:30 may be understood as a future event (after the Second Come of Christ), not the description of the situation before the Flood.

Accordingly Bible, birds were created later than fruit trees, but accordingly to evolution theory, fruits of the trees and birds which eat them co-evolved at the same time. Counter-argument: First fruit trees may have not edible (not suitable for birds) fruits. They may co-evolve with birds afterward.

If Geology developed as described by the mainstream science, how kangaroos reached Australia after the Flood? Counterargument: Maybe the Flood happened only in Eurasia? (It seems that what is commonly translated "Earth" in Bible about the Flood may mean a territory, such as Eurasia.) For this to happen, the altitude of Eurasia would need to be below altitude of other continents before the Flood. Is it possible? However, Bible teaches that the land was divided Tanakh:1 Chronicles 1:19 (and it agrees with mainstream science), but disagrees with the mainstream science on when and how quickly or slowly this happened.

I suspect that the words "day" and "night" here refer to position of the Earth in the galaxy (as about rotation of the galaxy or about position of the Earth in a spiral arm of the galaxy (day) or between arms (night), so having more or less lumination from God's stars).

Biblical arguments pro evolution

Victor Porton translated the following verses in a way supporting evolution:

  • Gen. 1:11 "Earth will sprout green plants producing descendant, fruit tree making fruit for its kind making progress of his offspring in it on the Earth". (It can be interpreted as fruit tree being descendants of grass.)
  • Gen. 1:25 "God has made relatives on the Earth by their kind" (if it is translated correctly, different kind of species are called relatives by Bible).
  • Gen. 1:29 "grass offspring bearing seed making progress on the surface of the entire Earth, and all trees making progress in their seed of the tree, offspring bearing seed".
  • Gen. 1:31 "God saw his deal all (time) making advance" (becoming better).
  • Gen. 2:4 says about "generations" during God's creation what may imply existence of death and thus evolution.

Gen 2:5 is an argument against understanding the "day" in Bible as 24 hours not an arbitrary amount of time, because grass can't wait for millions of years.

It is also difficult for creationism to explain, how predators and parasites have appeared.

Jesus says that serpents and scorpions are created by Devil: (Luk. 10:19) "Behold, I give you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy. Nothing will in any way hurt you." Thus it is a liable theory that the evolution on the Earth was going under effect of both God and Devil.

Isaiah 64:2-3 says that "mountains flowed since antiquity". This implies a very long ago creation of mountains of the Earth.

On creation of man

It looks like that Gen. 2:7 proves that people were specifically created not just descended from monkeys.

However there is probably no reason to assume that Gen. 2:7 is short-time event. We can consider that it is a millions years long story: God created Adam from atoms of soil using oxygen of the air to activate it.

So, does anything in Bible contradict to the theory that people are monkeys' descendents?

Well, probably some biotechnology of God (or an advanced civilization used by God) was used to transform monkeys into people.

Bible disagrees with modern science about the time period (as investigated by radiocarbon dating) of existence of man. But this can be easily explained by the fact that before the Flood the atmosphere of the Earth was different (so producing different quantities of carbon isotopes) and thus radiocarbon dating produces wrong results when analyzing events before the Flood.

Related topics


  • Fact and Faith. A zoology PhD attempts to reconcile evolution and Bible.