it seems more and more we hear Christianity is it war with a theory of evolution but this doesn't just come from atheists many Christians are in complete agreement with this idea and speak out against the theory of evolution calling it anti-scientific lacking any data and completely incompatible with the scriptures growing up in a very conservative Church I had this beaten into me over and over evolution is evil unscientific lacks any evidence and is completely and utterly incompatible with the creation account in Genesis but is it really many people end up rejecting Christianity altogether not even giving it a second look because the church hammers this idea into them that to be a Christian means you must reject evolution even though they may have become convinced by the evidence for it they end up throwing out their faith altogether over such a minor issue because many Christians have told us you can't be a Christian and believe in evolution on the other hand many Christians become so convinced by one possible reading of Genesis they refuse to even consider the fact it might be possible for someone to be a Christian and believe in the theory of evolution perhaps the supposed war is an illusion and there really is no conflict at all so I want to try to present a case that Christianity and evolution are 100% compatible I understand many Christians will still want to reject evolution even if I can show you can be a theistic evolutionist and a Christian because they believe evolution is unscientific and lacks any data it is not my intent here to argue scientifically for the theory of evolution but to argue that even if evolution is proven true it will not threaten the validity of the Scriptures so this will be done two videos and I'll deal with two big objections many Christians have when faced with the idea Christianity is compatible with evolution so my case will be built on both videos not just what I layout in this one the first objection many Christians have is the Bible says that we were created with purpose by a good God evolution teaches we are an accident we arrived here by random chance through a process without any intent direction or purpose well this belief is not entirely true about the theory of evolution in fact what I just said is not really correct because technically there is no theory of evolution they are actually theories of evolution philosopher of science Joshua Moritz lists several different views on how evolution happens from Lamarckian evolution Darwinian natural selection neo Darwinian evolution niche construction evolution through symbiogenesis evo-devo process structuralism and others what I have just described was the theory of evolution of neo-darwinism which specifically teaches that evolution is changing gene frequencies and populations in other words it is the idea that when a species produces offspring random variations in genetics will occur in this slow process of variation is the driving force of evolution neo Darwinian evolution is driven by chance it takes Darwinian natural selection and combines it with Gregor Mendel's work in genetics it theorizes that evolution specifically happened by random changes in the DNA of offspring when passed on under this idea all is random how we got here was by luck or chance it was not directed by any natural law or processes as stephen jay gould said if you were to rewind the tape of life back to zero and start evolution over you would not get human life or anything like what exists now but something totally and completely different because evolution is still random and entirely based on chance this is the current paradigm among evolutionary biologists now but it's Joshua Moritz notes this technically was not Darwin's view Darwin clearly did believe there was randomness at work no one doubts that he did not believe there was definitely only randomness at work like with neo-darwinian ISM when he talks about randomness he leaves open the fact there could be some cause or direction being maintained in the evolutionary process something like an undiscovered natural law which directed these evolutionary processes and constrained the amount of randomness that could occur so this brings me to my next point even though the current majority of evolutionary biologists hold to the neo-darwinian synthesis it is not the only game in town yes all views of evolution agree there is randomness in the genes you pass on to your offspring and that randomness is a factor in the evolution of life but some theories allow for a theory of evolution that is goal directed and constrained in certain ways on how life can evolve and the evidence is beginning to cause a number of scientists to suggest the neo-darwinian theory needs adjusting or replaced for example niche construction says organisms do not just adapt to environments through the chance of random variations and offspring but that organisms shape environments just as much as environments shape them as Paul Griffiths and Russell gray say organisms in their ecological niches are co-constructing in Co defining a good example is the beaver dam or bird's nest or a certain species will shape the environment they are in instead of being completely subject to the environment and being forced to adapt entirely humans are of course the Masters of this Kevin Leland and his Co researchers say organisms not only shape the nature of their world but also in part determine the selection pressures to which they and their descendants are exposed so it is not all random luck as organisms grown intelligence they are able to change their environments and determine their own selection pressures and give their evolutionary path some direction this idea of there being direction in evolutionary processes is important and we'll talk more about this later epigenetics has also modified our understanding of Neo Darwinian evolution epigenetics is the theory that environmental factors can cause changes in a species DNA that is passed off to their offspring for example studies on fruit flies have shown epigenetic markers for up to 13 generations later a study has shown that what a mother eats while pregnant will modify or shape the DNA of the child insider environmental factors that lead to depression may also change your DNA so we do see environments directing or shaping organisms to represent attics it is not all random variation in genes passed on but environments do play a role in directing certain characteristics to come about going on that basic idea many scientists have challenged the neo-darwinian thesis to its core by arguing there is evidence of direction or progress in evolution that cannot be adequately explained by the neo-darwinian thesis the most vocal in the past decade has been paleontologists Simon Conway Morris as neo Darwin and Stephen Jay Gould thought if you were wind the tape back to zero and start evolution all over you would not get anything like the speciation we have now let alone human life because everything came about by dumb luck or chance Morris says if you started evolution over you would get human life again or something very similar if you then started evolution again the same result would happen and again and again what Morris is arguing from is a position known as process structuralism which states as Joshua Moore it says maintains of the kinds or types of organisms that we see their body plans and many of their traits are the result of natural laws rather than being merely the byproducts of historical contingency enchanced genetic mutations there are natural laws that govern the evolution of biological structures in order in other words the evolved life that we have is an inevitable result of natural laws the natural laws of the universe are finely tuned to bring about life as we know it so in other words the evolution of humanity are something very similar was inevitable and would be on any other planet if life were to occur there as Robert berry remarked if we ever succeeded in communicating with conceptualized beings in outer space they won't be Spears pyramids cubes or pancakes in all probability they will look an awful lot like us it's a theory which claims that a lot of the order of the biological world arises from natural law or what the pre-darwinian biologist called the laws of form Bowen called it a polarizing force he didn't understand what they were he was a news widely speculating but that's their theory that a lot of order arises and so that biological forms are like crystals and galaxies and atoms they're part of the changes order of the world generated by universal laws of form oh and so if we go to another planet we might find vertebrates the same basic design at the end of on the nature of levels respectively as well there will be vertebrates and other planets in other words one of the planets the same laws of form the same laws of nature will generate the same forms of light we see on earth so that's if it's the idea it's goes back to Aristotle's forms that the biological world consists at its base of a series of what poem called primal patterns or basic forms generated by laws of form in nature side structuralism it doesn't say that all the order it's not explaining all the order of the biological world it doesn't explain adaptation it's it's an attempt to explain the bio plants the basic plants why we have insects why we have vertebrates and things of those the basic underlying patterns which underlie the basic taxa of the world the evidence process structuralism draws on comes from evidence of convergence in evolution we know how evolution creates divergent species one species splits into two separate species even though they have a common ancestor thus they diverged along different paths but what we also see an evolution is hundreds of cases of convergence where organisms not closely related independently evolved similar traits forms or physiology a common example is the form of the shark dolphin and the ichthyosaur each of these species evolved independently to look similar thus they all converge to the same point randomness and evolution obviously does happen no one denies that you can even see differences between these three but Morrises point is evolution is constrained to a certain degree not unbound an unlimited possibility nature is designed to bring about certain characteristics in evolution or that certain features are an inevitability guided by natural laws plus this is just one moderate example there are far better and more abundant cases of convergence that Morris covers take a look at this saber-tooth tiger sorry this is actually not a saber-tooth this is a South American marsupial that went extinct this is a saber-tooth cat but as you can see both evolved independently on different continents they have almost identical characteristics yet this one is more closely related to a kangaroo and this one is more closely related to a giraffe but this is just one example of conversions between marsupials and placentals john kirsch notes several examples of convergence between the two groups and brain structure and sensory input through stereoscopic vision and whiskers yet both groups of all these features independently on different areas of the globe the last common ancestor there not have these convergent features another interesting case of convergence is the evolution of the camera eye this has happened in vertebrates however this also happened independently in cephalopods and annelids and all three forms are almost identical and have the essential features of a camera beyond that it is a great eyes have evolved into handling multiple times a classic paper states summing up the different and convergent sequences towards eye perfection in general there are about 20 or even more independent lines of differentiation including at least 15 cases of independent attainments of photoreceptors with a distinct lens Bob Bakker cites six separate evolutionary lines that have all converged in multiple ways within placental mammals and argues that this is clear evidence of directional natural selection not random walk through genetic drift and this is only scratching the surface of the hundreds of examples of convergence like the similar form of the Mantis in the manna spa or Kirk Wine Miller's repeated evolution of eel-like morphology but the same structures seen in this particular cactus of the Sonoran Desert - a type of Spurs from East Africa there are just dozens upon dozens of examples Stewart Kaufman says the emerging Sciences of complexity begins to suggest that the order is not all accidental and that vast veins of spontaneous order lie at hand laws of complexity spontaneously generate much of the order of the natural world in other words complex organisms are not accidental products of chance Kaufman argues there is a natural law like source beyond mere natural selection that purposefully brings them out and the evidence is in dozens of examples of convergence like the independent evolution of anthropology social organization compound eyes courtship behaviors family structures antifreeze proteins c4 photosynthesis proteases peptidases and many dozens of other examples adaptation shows conversions and conversions in first evolution is not meant to be completely random but a directional process that focuses on bringing a limited amount of certain features to life from all this data Simon Conway Morris looks at the evolution of intelligence and asks if the evolution of humanity was an accident or if it was an inevitable consequence of nature he first notes we are unique in the level of intelligence we have over other creatures but also notes if humans did not first emerge with our massive brains it is very likely another creature would have eventually because there are multiple examples of conversions and intelligence and the evolution of larger than normal brains and species high levels of intelligence have developed in several species from corvids dolphins whales elephants and other primates Nicola Clayton says corvids are particularly good at solving laboratory tasks that rely on the ability to abstract a general rule to solve the task and transfer the general rule to new tasks they also have extremely large brains relative to their body size live in complex social groups comparable to that of chimpanzees have a complex understanding of social cognition and have a limited understanding of physics since at times they are able to choose the appropriate tool to solve a task in an experiment in other experiments have shown that crows can manipulate man-made objects to solve problems Clayton concludes her paper by saying we conclude that the intelligence in both corvids and primates has evolved through a process of divergent brain evolution yet convergent mental evolution dolphins and other cetaceans have also converged in regards to intelligence in fact up to about 1.5 million years ago dolphins had the largest brains on earth relative to their body size it appears their level of intelligence is very high compared to that of other animals and similar to ours in certain ways David Smith and his colleagues even remarked human and dolphin uncertain responses seem to be interesting cognitive analogues Laurie Moreno says humans and cetaceans represent two fundamentally different cortical organization themes and thus compels the conclusion that any similar complex cognitive processes between primates and cetaceans are convergent many studies show high levels of intelligence in dolphins like self recognition and mirrors a possible language development and a high level of cognitive ability thus high intelligence has evolved independently on other lines of evolution within primates there is clear evidence of intelligence evolving on multiple lines as well as the ability to walk on two legs a good example seen in the convergence of old world and new world primates new world monkeys known as capuchins have been shown to have complex social structures ingenuity and a high level of intelligence including the use of tools this led researcher Martin Moynihan to say with all their limitations however capuchins can cope with some classes of stimuli with remarkable ingenuity almost unparalleled below the level of man himself this is why Simon Conway Morris concludes the evolution of humans or something like us was inevitable if we had it walk out of Africa then probably sooner rather than later our analogs would have strolled out of South America holding tools the amount of convergence towards intelligence in primates is pretty remarkable and has been observed throughout the genus Bernard Wood says key hominid adaptations such as bipedalism manual dexterity in a large brain are likely to evolve more than once thus intelligence appears to be an inevitable consequence of evolution in adaptation not something that appeared because of random chance or luck it could possibly be that our existence was an inevitable fate the moment life began so given all this convergence evolution appears to have a rational structure and if that is the case why would it contradict Christianity what we see here from what we looked at today the highly structured and convergent evolution of life through organized processes self-organized processes that seem to be directed by law that's what we saw we saw today we have these processes that appear to be directed by some sort of physical law for Christians if we go back to the early church natural law is just the scientific way of referring to God's will for creation since God is ultimately the one who created these laws for creation to follow or for nature to fall and this has been a long-held piece of you laws of nature are not anti God these aren't God's will this was what Augusta and Basel or others we talked about said the scientific understanding of the emergence and complexification of life is exactly what we should expect to see in the Hebrew terms yachts are and a saw which are used to describe both God's creation of an embryo and God's creation of complex plant and animal life and so here if we take this process structuralist self-organized evolutionary developmental biology view we see something extremely similar to the development of an embryo in the development of life so if evolution doesn't automatically equal neo-darwinism then we could hold to a theory of evolution like process structuralism and there would be no reason Christianity would be incompatible with evolution I know there are many Christians who is still deny evolution due to our lack of understanding and how certain complexities could evolve but even if those get sorted out in the future it will only demonstrate the creation of life happened through evolution not creating the challenges for Christianity and as a Christian there is no reason to think the theory of evolution is the enemy of the Bible plus as the recent decades have shown the neo-darwinism is beginning to change from epigenetics to conversions the evidence is piling up random variations and genes cannot fully explain the evolution of life in a more complete theory of evolution may lead us to a theory where evolution is rational and has direction in life as we have now is an inevitability rather than just brought about by chance you