The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Theistic Evolution is not biblical

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/8/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,324 times Debate No: 36489
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




Hello Debate. Org. This is my first ever online debate. And I am very excited for it. I will be arguing that Christians can not make the argument that the theory of evolution is in the bible.

Round 1 is for acceptance only please.


I accept your challenge. Please provide evidence demonstrating that theistic evolution is biblically unsound.
Debate Round No. 1


Here are my following reasons for why I believe theistic evolution is unbiblical

Reason 1: the context of the word yom in Genesis 1 it has a morning and evening

Reason 2.
God said in Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." The Hebrew word for "make" in this verse, and in verse 25 where God makes the beasts, is "asah." It means to do, work, make, produce. This is not simply the limited Hebrew understanding of evolutionary principles.

Reason 3 1) If a day is an era, why are an evening and a morning even mentioned? Actual days must be intended, otherwise, men who lived hundreds of years, e.g., Seth and Noah, would really have lived millions of years. If a day is an era, then a year must be tremendously long, perhaps encompassing hundreds of millions of years;

Reason 4 Genesis 1:16 ("And God made two great lights: The greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night") states the sun rules the day and the moon rules the night. This obviously is referring to time as we know it, time with days that are 24 hours long with daylight ruling half of each.

reason 5 Genesis 1:5 surely spoke of literal day and literal night, and the inference from the statement, "And the evening and the morning were the first day," is that it was a literal day of evening and morning, 24-hours. There is no Biblical evidence that the days of this chapter were longer periods.

Reason 6
If a day is an era, then much of the Old Testament becomes chaotic. For example, in each of the following verses the same Hebrew word "yom" is employed: "And the flood was forty days upon the earth" (Genesis 7: 1 7), "And he [Moses] was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights" (Exodus 34:28), and "Thus I fell down before the Lord forty days and forty nights..." (Deuteronomy 9:25). If "yom" means era instead of a 24-hour period, Moses was "there with the Lord" for a long time.

7: Jesus spoke of Noah's flood "But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. "
Matthew 24:37, Luke 17:27

8 There is no evidence of a longer period. Anywhere in the bible



The Instigator's points are valid and so do not need to be rebutted. However, the Instigator has implicitly assumed that the Bible, at least the relevant sections, are meant to be understood at face value and only at face value. This brand of Biblical interpretation is known as literalism and is popular amongst partisan atheists and religious fundamentalists. However, many learned scholars, both secular and religious, reject Biblical literalism in favor of the historical-critical method. (As a digression, this historiography is used for all ancient texts, not just the Hebrew Bible.) Under this method, the text is read "between the lines," so to speak, and the interpreter attempts to find the original meaning of the author, rather than the superficial meaning of the text.

The Instigator has either unknowingly or purposely omitted alternative understandings of the text in favor of a literalistic reading. One alternative. Some scholars have concluded that the Genesis Myth was created in order to demonstrate that the Hebrew God is superior to other Mesoamerican deities. The Ancient Jews needed a story to demonstrate why God deserves worship and so they advanced a story showing how God created the universe instead of subduing it, in contrast to other Mesoamerican deities.

Another possibility is that the story is meant to be allegorical. In contradiction to criticism that metaphorical and allegorical interpretations became popular in direct response to the rise of science, Christians, since the 3rd century, have found allegorical interpretations of the story. Furthermore, the Apostle Paul himself thought some Genesis stories to have been allegorical, as demonstrated by Galatians 4:21-31.

The Instigator's claim is that theistic evolution is not Biblical. However, his assertion rests upon the assumption that literalism is the only way to read the text. This is demonstrably false, as shown. Theistic evolution is Biblical as it is nothing more than an alternative interpretation of the Bible, one which harmonizes spirituality and naturalism.

Debate Round No. 2


Thank you Con for your arguments

Con claims that the bible should be read in the historical-critical method, and this is valid in some cases depending on its context, authorship ect. The bible has many literary devices they include history, poetry, parables, and the such. Genisis is clearly written in the historical form.

My opponent also claims that Genisis should be taken allegory, however this is not the case either because:
Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory, the need for a Savior is an allegory, and Adam is an allegory"but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine"it destroys the foundation of the gospel. - ken Ham

Again I thank you for joining me in my first debate.


Genesis is indeed written in the form of a history, a creation myth, to be exact. But it seems as if the Instigator misunderstands the higher criticism and continues to insists upon a literal interpretation, despite the unpopularity of such an interpretation among historical critics and textual philologists. As previously mentioned, the Instigator's arguments uses biblical literalism as its primary assumption. Unfortunately, most adherents to theistic evolution do not subscribe to literalism. Given that there are more rational ways of reading an ancient text, literalism is unnecessary and theistic evolution can be biblical.

And just to respond to the last point, it is false to say that an allegorical interpretation would destroy the foundations of Christianity. If the founders of Christianity were themselves open to an allegorical interpretation, how could an allegorical interpretation be destructive? (It seems that the Instigator has confused "allegorical" with "metaphorical" and assumes a vulgar meaning of "myth.") The Biblical references to the Genesis story are already allegorical. Whenever the New Testament writers reference the story, they assign theological significance to the events and attempt to find a higher meaning. Allegory cannot be detrimental if it's asserted by the writers themselves.

Everyone should vote and leave comments!
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by DudeWithoutTheE 3 years ago
Posted by countzander 3 years ago
That was a typo.
Posted by DudeWithoutTheE 3 years ago
I did like the description of YHWH as a 'mesoamerican' deity. Made me chuckle.
Posted by MigMau 3 years ago
Thank you so much, countzader.
Posted by countzander 3 years ago
MigMau, don't feed the trolls. I've already reported him.
Posted by MigMau 3 years ago
First of all, you need to respect people. It's evil to say that for saying what's my POV, I'm making up s*** and that I am an uneducated religitard. Just so you know, I studied religions, philosophies and atheism to support my reasons. I read more than you, probably to get here. And after all, after seeing all reasons, I believe in God. I believe He wants us to evolve, discover, grow and love.
If you ear God differently, you should even so respect me. He sings to me peace, warm, harmony and growth. So before you write back, think about think about the influence God makes on me and lots of people. Is it so bad if we were wrong? Is it worth lose a person with that spirit just because that will make you feel a big shot? The way to Heaven is making the good. If God wants to help, he sends faith. If he doesn't its because he knows the human goodness will find a way.
To everyone, even you, who I'll pray for, devient, peace and love.
Posted by MigMau 3 years ago
You can't take the Bible literally... If you examine a double meaning in Genesis you will see it agrees with Big Bang and Evolution. The Seven Days are a honor to Sabbat... It's easy to put together links with the Bible and Science. God wants Peace, not War.
Posted by DMiller584 3 years ago
Christians who do not take the creation story literally will maintain all sorts of ways to make the Biblical version compatible with the theory of evolution. Look out for all of that.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by medv4380 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro needed to properly establish what Theistic Evolution is in order to make his point. The argument being used is so broad that it could be mistaken for an argument against Day Age Creationism. Pro conceded that the historical-critical method was valid, but failed to present any convening reason it wouldn't be valid for Genesis. Sources go to Pro because Con cited Wikipedia. If Wikipedia was a reliable source you should be citing the citations it is citing, and not it. Spelling goes to Con because Pro's argument is cluttered with missing punctuation, and incorrect caps.