But how<\/em> did God create the heavens and the earth?<\/p>\n\n\n\n People have asked this question for thousands of years and have come up with many different ideas, including the theory of evolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Before we get into this topic, it\u2019s important to remember that each person\u2019s belief regarding evolution is a secondary issue in theology. Thankfully, no matter what your viewpoint is on evolution, it does not<\/em> dictate if you are (or can be) saved by Jesus Christ. Yes, it\u2019s an important and relevant topic, but it doesn\u2019t impact our salvation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As a curious person, you might be wondering . . .<\/p>\n\n\n\n Christians can believe in a number of scientific concepts that aren\u2019t explicitly outlined in the Bible, such as cells, molecules, photosynthesis, gravity, etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, some scientific concepts\u2014like evolution\u2014can both align with and challenge the Christian worldview in different ways. When it comes to evolution, the question becomes: Which worldview best lines up with the evidence in nature and the truth of the Bible? Both will give us clues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Christians hold different views when trying to understand how God created.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The three most common views are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Each view engages the topic of evolution differently, but all three accept at least portions<\/em> of evolutionary theory. Reasons to Believe holds an old-earth creationism<\/a> position and believes it offers the best explanation for what we see in the record of nature and the words of Scripture. RTB also remains skeptical<\/em> of the extent to which the evolutionary paradigm explains the history of life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The concept of evolution emerged in the mid-19th century to help explain our ever-changing natural world. When it comes to the origin of the universe and life on Earth, evolution remains the predominant idea being taught in schools.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy<\/em><\/a>, the definition of evolution is \u201cany change in the frequency of [gene variants] within a population from one generation to the next.\u201d <\/sup>This means that any change in a living organism\u2019s genetics from one generation to the next is within the realm of \u201cevolution\u201d (i.e., plants, animal breeds, eye color, etc.).<\/p>\n\n\n\n More simply put, evolution = changes over time.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The concept of evolution predates Charles Darwin. However, Darwin progressed and popularized the term \u201cevolution\u201d and the theory in connection to natural selection in the 1800s through his writings On the Origin of Species<\/em> (1859) and The Descent of Man<\/em> (1871).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Images from your high school textbook are probably coming to mind!<\/p>\n\n\n\n Darwin\u2019s ideas led to something called the evolutionary paradigm<\/em>, which many scientists use in an attempt to explain any<\/em> biological change or even the emergence<\/em> of life in the universe. The problem is, this paradigm is a mixture of proven concepts and unproven theories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let\u2019s unpack it so you can clearly see which parts are well-supported by science and which ones are not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Within the evolutionary paradigm, there are five categories:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The first three categories are well-evidenced and noncontroversial. We see them working in our everyday lives when we go to the zoo or are given a flu vaccine at the doctor\u2019s office. Many of us even take delight in microevolution when considering which dog or cat to choose as our beloved family pet!<\/p>\n\n\n\n But the last two, chemical evolution and macroevolution, are proposed concepts and lack full scientific rigor and support.<\/strong> This is why RTB remains skeptical of the full evolutionary paradigm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Chemical evolution tries to explain how life on Earth began<\/a> using only natural processes. The main idea behind it is that the basic building blocks of life\u2014the \u201cessential stuff\u201d that\u2019s loaded with detailed information (like DNA, proteins, and cells)\u2014supposedly came together through natural processes, without any outside help. Scientists working in this field are hoping to find a way to explain how this could happen all on its own, to avoid the need for a miracle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, current evidence doesn\u2019t support the idea of chemical evolution. Even with experiments in labs trying to recreate the conditions of early Earth, scientists can\u2019t produce life without stepping in and guiding the process. This shows that natural processes alone might not be enough to explain how life started<\/p>\n\n\n\n In What Darwin Didn\u2019t Know<\/em><\/a>, biochemist Dr. Fazale \u201cFuz\u201d Rana explains:<\/p>\n\n\n\n When we look at the origin of life, it seems that a divine hand is more likely than chemical evolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Macroevolution similarly falls short. There\u2019s not enough data to support this idea. For example, macroevolution fails to explain:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Many supporters of macroevolution suggest that humans evolved from ape-like creatures through a line that may have included Neanderthals or Denisovans. In this model, scientists attempt to explain the origin of humans without the need for a Creator. But there\u2019s not enough evidence to support human evolution<\/a>, either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Learn more about the evidence (or lack thereof) for microevolution vs. macroevolution<\/a> and watch below to hear how Dr. Fazale Rana briefly responds to macroevolution:<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"Students](\"https:\/\/reasons-prod.storage.googleapis.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/1014-students_taking_notes_in_lecture.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nCan Christians Believe in Evolution?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
But . . . What Exactly Is<\/em> Evolution?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
![\"Illustration](\"https:\/\/reasons-prod.storage.googleapis.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/1014-Darwins_finches-e1769538904807-1024x786.jpg\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\nBreaking Down the Evolutionary Paradigm<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
<\/li>\n\n\n\n
<\/li>\n\n\n\n
<\/li>\n\n\n\n
<\/li>\n\n\n\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/reasons-prod.storage.googleapis.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/1014-wolf_and_dog_with_similarities.jpg\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\nWhile early, sudden, and complex life makes little sense from an evolutionary perspective, a creation explanation seems reasonable. If God introduced first life on Earth, it would appear instantaneously and abundantly in a complex form.<\/q>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n\n\n
\n