How does evolution fit into the bible

Our results also highlight the importance of examining religious students separately from nonreligious students in evolution education. Because religious students have a set of worldviews that can create barriers to evolution acceptance that are not present for nonreligious students, relationships between variables and evolution acceptance will likely be different for religious and nonreligious students. Although recent evolution education studies have probed the interactions between religiosity and other variables when studying evolution acceptance Weisberg et al.

However, our results build on the growing body of literature that suggests this should become a common part of any protocol in which researchers are measuring evolution acceptance.

Given these results and prior literature, we encourage biology instructors to think about how their own personal views of evolution and religion may affect how they communicate with students about whether evolution is atheistic or agnostic.

Seventy-five percent of biologists nationwide do not believe in a God Ecklund and Scheitle, ; Pew, , so presumably these biologists hold the personal view of atheistic evolution. However, do biologists who hold an atheistic personal view of evolution recognize and communicate to their students the bounded nature of science?

It is likely that instructors who do not have personal religious backgrounds themselves do not think or teach about this distinction in the context of evolution Barnes and Brownell, , , because the culture of science is generally seen as more compatible with atheism than theism Ecklund and Park, However, our data suggest that whether an instructor recognizes and communicates the bounded nature of science accurately during evolution instruction could matter for religious student outcomes in evolution education.

For these reasons, we encourage instructors to familiarize themselves with Religious Cultural Competence in Evolution Education Barnes and Brownell, , an umbrella framework of instructional practices identified in the literature to help nonreligious instructors better understand how to teach religious students about evolution in an effective and culturally competent way, which includes teaching the bounded nature of science Barnes et al.

We operated on an assumption about the nature of science that supernatural existence or influence is outside the scope of science. We agree that evolution operates from the assumption that a God is not needed for evolution to occur, but do not agree that this is incompatible with a personal belief that a God does exist and has somehow influenced evolution. Researchers in evolution education have discussed and advocated for this distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism in the evolution education literature Scott, ; Sober, We chose to aggregate scores from Likert-type response options to create continuous Likert scales and used parametric statistics in our analyses.

As argued by Norman , this issue has two parts: measurement and statistics. The conclusions from the parametric statistics are valid as long as the assumptions of the data distributions are roughly met. Substantial literature exists to show that parametric statistics are robust, giving the right answers even when assumptions are violated.

In the Results sections of this paper, we have demonstrated that the assumptions linear regression has on data distributions are roughly met, which justifies the use of the parametric statistics methods on the data.

However, we would like to acknowledge the controversy in the measurement part. In our study, we followed a commonly accepted practice of summing individual items scores to form the score of the scale and use the summed score to represent the latent construct.

We agree with the opponents of this practice that single Likert response format items are on an ordinal scale, but the proponents of this practice argue that many studies have shown that Likert scales as opposed to single items produce interval data appropriate for parametric statistics e.

As a further direction, one may consider applying item response theory Hambleton et al. Further, we found that having this perception predicted lower levels of evolution acceptance and comfort learning evolution as well as higher perceived conflict between religious beliefs and evolution among highly religious students. We define religiosity as the extent to which one participates in religious activities such as prayer and service attendance i.

We would like to acknowledge Jim Collins for his feedback on earlier versions of the article as well as members of the Biology Education Research lab at Arizona State University for their feedback.

Barnes et al. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author s. It is available to the public under an Attribution—Noncommercial—Share Alike 3. Hayley M. Gale M. Taija M. Sara E. Add to favorites Download Citations Track Citations. View article. Agnosticism is of the essence of science … It simply means that [we] shall not say [we] know or believe that which [we] have no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe … Consequently, agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology … Agnosticism simply says that we know nothing of what may be beyond phenomena.

Options students were given for their personal view of evolution and then what they thought most closely represented the scientific view of evolution Choice Description presented to student Young Earth creationism All forms of life were first brought into being in their present form by God —10, years ago at the same time. Old Earth creationism All forms of life were first brought into being in their present form by God at different times over billions of years. Creationism with some evolution Some forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but God created groups of organisms such as reptiles, birds, mammals, and humans separate from one another, and organisms that currently exist have evolved slowly from those first creations.

Humans-only creationism Almost all forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but humans were created by God in their present form separate from the rest of life. Interventionist evolution All forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but God intervenes from time to time to shape or override evolution. Deistic evolution All forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but life and evolution were first set in motion by God without a specific purpose or plan.

Agnostic evolution All forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but it is uncertain whether God was involved in evolution. Atheistic evolution All forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but no God has ever played any role in evolution.

Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Washington, DC. Google Scholar Barbour, I. Religion in an age of science. Google Scholar Barnes, M. Practices and perspectives of college instructors on addressing religious beliefs when teaching evolution. Experiences and practices of evolution instructors at Christian universities that can inform culturally competent evolution education. Science Education , 1 , 36— Different evolution acceptance instruments lead to different research findings.

Evolution: Education and Outreach , 12 1 , 4. American Biology Teacher , 79 2 , — Evolution: Education and Outreach , 10 , 7. Experiences of Judeo-Christian students in undergraduate biology.

Differential impacts of a culturally competent genetics curriculum on student perceptions of conflict between religion and evolution at an evangelical Christian university. American Biology Teacher , 82 2 , 93— Creationism and evolution beliefs among college students. Skeptic , 14 3 , 13— Google Scholar Bishop, B. Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 27 5 , — A longitudinal study of attitudes toward evolution among undergraduates who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Perceived consequences of evolution: College students perceive negative personal and social impact in evolutionary theory. Science Education , 87 2 , — Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions, persistent myths and urban legends about Likert scales and Likert response formats and their antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences , 3 3 , — Google Scholar Cho, J.

Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences. The Qualitative Report , 19 32 , 1. Google Scholar Cohen, A. The accessibility of religious beliefs. Journal of Research in Personality , 42 6 , — The language of God: A scientist presents evidence for belief. New York: Simon and Schuster. Google Scholar Coyne, J. Faith versus fact: Why science and religion are incompatible.

New York: Penguin. Google Scholar Dawkins, R. The god delusion. New York: Random House. Google Scholar Dingemans, E. Does religion breed trust? A cross-national study of the effects of religious involvement, religious faith, and religious context on social trust. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 54 4 , — A multifactorial analysis of acceptance of evolution.

Evolution: Education and Outreach , 10 , 4. Conflict between religion and science among academic scientists? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 48 2 , — Scientists negotiate boundaries between religion and science.

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 50 3 , — Religion among academic scientists: Distinctions, disciplines, and demographics. Social Problems , 54 2 , — The religiosity of academic scientists in the United Kingdom: Assessing the role of discipline and department status. Already a subscriber? Sign in. Thanks for reading Scientific American. Create your free account or Sign in to continue.

See Subscription Options. Discover World-Changing Science. Get smart. Sign up for our email newsletter. Sign Up. Support science journalism. Knowledge awaits. See Subscription Options Already a subscriber? Create Account See Subscription Options. Continue reading with a Scientific American subscription.

There is no place in the bible that talks about the dinosaur age, when these huge reptilian creatures roamed the earth without human interference and then suddenly disappeared. Paleontologists and archeologists estimate the dinosaurs to have lived around 65 million years ago, during the Cretaceous period. There are a number of speculations for their extinction: the climate became too extreme one way or the other, the animals fed on newly evolved poisonous plants, new species evolved and ate the eggs of the dinosaurs, or an asteroid or comet fell to the earth, destroying everything on the earth.

These large scale extinctions are due a companion star coming close to the sun, disrupting the orbits and causing comets and asteroids to hit the earth. Yet, another approach to the creation of the earth relates to how we view time. In the Bible, each day is assigned a new creation, but is time today the same as it was at the time of Creation? Some scientists believe that each day of Creation is related to a geological time period.

As one period began and developed, God added on to it, thus another day of creation. Each day or time period brings something new and different to the earth. The days of creation could be seen to humans as a hour day; it is easier for us to comprehend a day in a hour period rather than in millions or billions of years. The Bible in a sense took the easier way out to describe the story of creation to us. The Bible relates in the first thirty-one verses of Genesis the events that span around 16 billion years, from mere hundred words theologically to more than a million words scientifically.

How human beings came to be on the earth is another big topic among evolutionists and creationists. Eve was later made from the ribcage of Adam as a companion.

Adam and Eve are the beginning of the human species race, and from them, all human beings descend. This is what separates us from any other species, for human beings have a soul, guided by God. The creation of Adam could be seen differently though depending on how one interprets the Bible. The making of Adam relates to the body. In the Hebrew language, the word adam is rooted in the word meaning soil. The creation of Adam refers to the human soul, the neshama.

Legends and biblical scholars would say that Adam was created at the age of twenty, but it could be possible for him to be made at an earlier age and lived for nineteen years without a soul. He became a human being at the age of twenty when God created him with neshama.

There are several verses within the Bible Numbers , , Deuteronomy that teach at the age of twenty one becomes divinely responsible for their own actions. Before the soul was given, there was something like a man, but not completely human. So one view could be that Adam was created at the age of twenty, and before his creation, he had evolved from the primate species. Evolutionists have a different view of how human beings came into the world, believing that we have evolved from other species, specifically the primates.

Fossil records have shown that Homo sapiens have evolved from four-legged creatures swinging through trees, to 2-legged creatures that walk the earth. Fossils of pre-historic humans show a remarkable resemblance to the primates, all the way from the jaw and forehead, to the torso and feet. Throughout time, evolution has adapted the human species into modern day human beings, making it possible to live in present-day times.

Language developed because of adaptation as the need presented itself. Creationism and evolution have two very different viewpoints of how the earth and human beings began. Creationism is based on the belief that the Bible is a credible source, which gives the story of Creation.

In the span of six days 24 hour days , God created the heavens and the earth, the sun, moon, stars, and all of the creatures of the earth. Creationists believe that the earth is young, and that organisms are fixed, every organism that we see today is the same organism that God created a few thousands of years ago.

Adam and Eve are the beginning of the human race, and we are separated from every other species by the soul that God gave us. Creationists say that those who believe in evolution are immoral. The earth was made over a long period, beginning 4. Life began with inorganic molecules, and with the help of nature, became viable living organisms. EC is neither science nor theology, but an explanatory system that seeks to incorporate the best scholarship from each. It also includes some ideas about how theology and science relate to one another.

First, we prefer EC because we are, essentially, creationists. We are not mere theists. We believe that God—by the authority of the Father, through the Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit—created all things.

Our beliefs about God and creation come first. When we look at the insights science provides through the eyes of faith, we get an even fuller picture of reality.

Third, many people have historically accused TEs of being deists. TE has at times been associated with the idea that God created the world and all the natural laws, but is no longer actively governing or involved in the cosmos. In the BioLogos community we affirm the biblical miracles most centrally the Resurrection , believe God answers prayer, and recognize that God works providentially through natural processes to accomplish his purposes.

It is worth noting that BioLogos Founder Dr. In any community, not everyone believes exactly the same things. Some beliefs are primary and help to define the group. Others are secondary and open to debate. The EC community here at BioLogos is no exception. The BioLogos Statement of Beliefs includes beliefs affirmed by all staff and Board members, and convictions shared by most in our community.

However, on many topics a range of views exists within our community. On those topics we do not champion one particular view. For example, everyone at BioLogos believes all humans are made in the image of God , but there are different ideas about what exactly this means. For some, the image of God refers to our cognitive capacities, while others emphasize our unique spiritual capacity to enter into a relationship with God. Or consider Adam and Eve.

ECs generally agree that people were made by God and that humans are biologically related to other creatures, but they differ on how best to interpret the early chapters of Genesis.

Some ECs believe Adam and Eve were a historical couple.