Christianity currently finds itself in the midst of an interesting transition. Young people have shown a greater willingness to leave behind their parents’ religious traditions than they have in the past. This is due in large part to the growing minority of the non-religious and an increased social acceptance of atheism (source 1, 2 ). Still, the majority of children who grow up in evangelical households will maintain their Christian identity, although often in a form that looks significantly different than that of their parents’.

In order to deal with the conflict between growing social pressures and keeping their faith, many Christians have responded by claiming a belief in both evolutionary theory and Christianity. This approach has been especially popular among Christian intellectuals and scientists such as Kenneth R. Miller and Francis Collins. The Catholic church itself has taken a stance that permits if not welcomes those who are staunch believers of evolutionary theory (source).

Most often, the debate over whether or not Christianity and evolution are compatible is waged over the theory’s relation to the first two chapters of Genesis. Theistic evolutionists are quick to point out the contradictions between the creation story in Genesis 1 and the creation story in Genesis 2. They claim that this shows that the stories in Genesis are allegorical rather than historical and does not present a conflict between the belief in evolution and the belief in the inspiration of scripture. Detractors of evolutionary theory however, tend to claim that these inconsistencies are misinterpretations on the part of the reader and that the creation story is historical fact.

The theistic evolutionist’s argument regarding the interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis seems quite reasonable, but the position runs into conflict with two important beliefs tantamount to Christian theology; humanity is made in the image of God and the world is in a fallen state due to man’s sin.

While many theistic evolutionists haven’t concerned themselves with these issues, a good number have done so with varying conclusions. Some take a deistic approach to Christianity and throw all semblances of biblical authority out the window. Others have argued that these issues have several reasonable answers that bridge the conflict.

The idea that man is unique and has some sort of spiritual or physical similarity with the creator is important because it makes man worth saving. It’s instinctual to know that parents protect their children and that children share a resemblance to their parent. The idea that God placed something of himself in our existence is the part of the Christian story that gives us a sense of meaning. When a man believes that he is merely part of one species in a line of hominids, it becomes difficult for him to see himself as being made in God’s image.

The idea of sentience is often brought up in this conversation. I must qualify that by sentience I am not speaking of its literal meaning, but rather the general idea of the human characteristics of consciousness not normally attributed to other members of the animal kingdom.  There is no way right now for the fields of biology or evolutionary psychology to come to any sort of conclusive consensus on when exactly humans and their close ancestors achieved sentience. This allows the theistic evolutionist to have his cake and eat it too by allowing him to believe in the fossil record while attributing his developed mind as a gift from God that separates him from the rest of the animal kingdom. If it were to come to light that other members of the animal kingdom were more emotionally and mentally developed than previously thought, I believe it would be a hard blow struck against theistic evolution.

It should be noted that some theistic evolutionists believe in a literal creation of humanity. They subscribe to the attitude that while the rest of the animal kingdom slithered and climbed its way up the evolutionary ladder, God intervened some 20,000 years ago and created us in our current form. While this solves the problem of uniqueness and conflicts less with the biblical account, it’s a minority view not held by prestigious members of the theistic evolution camp such as the previously mentioned Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins.

The idea of the fall has classically held a great deal of importance in Christian belief. Paul, who wrote the majority of the new testament, especially stresses the idea in the book of Romans. In recent history though, its importance has been downplayed by mainstream and evangelical denominations. This is due in large part to a growing amount of biblical illiteracy within America (simply put, American Christians don’t even know what they believe anymore). The fall is an important concept in Christianity because it explains the current “flawed” state of the world, it explains the source of human depravity, and it provides the reason that humanity must be saved by Jesus Christ.

The theory of evolution depends on the current state of the world. The descriptions of the Earth before the fall as described in the bible, a world without death or competition, would have Darwin rolling in his grave. Theistic evolutionists try to account for the discrepancy by downplaying the importance of the fall. They do this by maintaining that the flawed state of the world as described in the bible is a metaphor for the flawed state of the human soul. The idea of original sin is outright denied or attributed to the first sentient beings being placed in an Adam and Eve type situation.

These views downplay the importance of biblical authority in favor of finding resolution to intellectual conflict. While this compromise may help solve existential anxiety at the moment, I wonder if the future will show this to be a viable position or merely a flawed example of creative intellectual gymnastics.