"Evolution" meaning changes to the gene pool and natural selection are entirely consistent with Christian beliefs, so people who acknowledge the obvious truth of these two facts are certainly not guilty of anything. All Christians are sinners - it is part of the basic doctrines of Christianity - whether they believe any or all aspects of evolution or not. While there are some extreme individuals who would perceive any concession to "common decent from a single-celled ancestor" as sin, there are probably more who accept the notion that God might have used a gradual evolution process to create life. I am not saying either position is right or wrong, but that sincere Bible-believing Christians disagree. Those who claim six literal 24-hour days of creation have many good biblical points on their side, and those who do not choose to accept six literal days find adequate evidence to justify their position. Only God knows the hearts of the individuals and can judge whether their positions comes from faith in God or not. Romans 14:23 (NIV) "everything that does not come from faith is sin." I believe there are many things about which one can be honestly wrong without sinning and that this is one. _______________ Let me clarify a couple of things. The word "evolution" has many meanings and different aspects of evolution have different value. For example: mutations happen. We have seen it in laboratory situations and the real world. Sometimes those individuals with non-lethal mutations survive and pass on the changed genes to offspring resulting in changes to the gene pool. This is observable fact and it is evolution (the word literally means "change"). Some people apparently think the word must allow for an original spontaneous generation of life and the random generation of increasing complexity and diversity of life. I don't believe the use of the word requires all these things, but may imply them. When I use the word, I try to be clear what specific aspects related to the non-specific term I am addressing. I suggest others do as well. So... Evolution (meaning origin and diversification of all life through undirected random processes) is inconsistent with essential Christian beliefs. Evolution (meaning mutation and natural selection resulting in changes to the gene pool) is entirely consistent with essential Christian beliefs. The assertion that Christianity must be opposed to evolution is misleading when the meaning of the word is not specified.

There are 2 types of evolution; macro and micro. Macro evolution is essentially one species mutating leading to the formation of a new species (there is no actual evidence of this ever occuring). Micro evolution is the minor changes that occur within a species. This is explained by the adage 'survival of the fittest', and is not proof of macro evolution at all. The traditional Christian view would accept micro evolution without a problem, but reject macro evolution. I personally hold this view because there isn't enough evidence to support macro-evolution. For example, one of the oldest fossil that has ever been found is a worker ant, which is exactly the same as today's worker ant. As a sidenote: It is possible to believe in macro evolution and still be a Christian. To hold this view, you would have to view Genesis 1 as symbolic and not literal, and that God was simply the initiator of the mutations that occur.

I know I have already answered this question, but I wanted to clarify on something I said in the other answer. There are many Christians that believe that evolution is consistent with Christianity, it is not nearly as minor of an opinion as you would think. For example, Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project is a Christian that holds to evolution. He plainly states this in his book that has just come out and the many interviews he has had lately. The only requirement for a Christian to hold to evolution is that the Creation story in Genesis is symbolic. The Hebrew word for day that is used in the Creation account of Genesis chapter 1 is the same for age or epoc, so these days could have actually been several thousands of years long, which is entirely coexistent with evolution. The only point of distinction from the typical view of evolution is that a Christian would have to believe that God was the one that initiated the process, and that the changes occurred as a result of his influence, and given the complexity of our universe this is not a stretch by any means either.

Really THINK about this question.... Anything that takes form or adds to is in OPPOSITION to our LORD>>

The many Christians who believe the Bible is a fairy tale or allegory do believe in evolution. This makes them sinners to those who take the Bible literally.

  Evolution is not contradictory to Christian beliefs. Who are we humans to determine whether God is allowed to use the tools of evolution in God's creation?  

I believe in micro-evolution which is several small mutations inside a certain species. Macro-evolution (evolution from one species to another) is completely un-biblical and a sin. The Bible says nothing about Macro-evolution! In fact there are many, many Bible verses that are completely contradictory of Macro-Evolution. God created every animal after its own kind. Even fossil evidence supports macro-evolution being false. Ever since Charles Darwin came up with the theory of Evolution, there have been little to no transitory fossils found in between different species. Darwin even stated in "On The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, Or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle For Life" that if no transitory fossils were found his theory would "Surely Break Down". Even after 100 years, no transitory fossils have been found, yet his theory is still the most widely accepted theory for how humans came to be.

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

nah, they just tend to think outside the "book", and ......actually think.

Many who say that one can be a Christian and still believe in Macro evolution, do not believe that the Genesis account iS literal, but fictional. For the sake of argument, let us say that Adam and Eve were not real persons. How, then, would Bible references to them be understood? A rejection of the Adam-and-Eve account in Genesis starts a chain reaction that ends up in almost total rejection of everything the Bible teaches. SO NOW LET US REASON ON WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ● “[Jesus] said: ‘Did you not read [at Genesis 1:27; 2:24] that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife”?’”—Matthew 19:4, 5. Jesus Christ is widely recognized as one who held to the highest standards of honesty and morality. If the Genesis account about Adam and Eve is only allegorical, would Jesus have quoted it as actual fact? ● “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli, son of Matthat, . . . son of David, son of Jesse, . . . son of Abraham, . . . son of Shem, son of Noah, . . . son of Adam, son of God.”—Luke 3:23-38. Where does Luke’s listing of Jesus’ ancestors change over from a mythical person to a real person? Who is the first real man on the list, if not Adam? ● “Through one man sin entered into the world . . . thus death spread to all men.” “Death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses.”—Romans 5:12, 14. If Adam was “primordial mankind,” should not the apostle Paul have spoken of “several men” instead of “one man”? And if Adam is fictional, what about Moses? No one doubts that he existed. ● “The seventh one in line from Adam, Enoch, prophesied also regarding [the wicked].”—Jude 14. If Adam was not a real individual, what about Enoch? And if Enoch was a real person, how could he have been the seventh in line from a fictitious Adam? IS IT NOT APPARENT THAT, AS REFERRED TO IN THE BIBLE, ADAM AND EVE WERE REAL PERSONS?

Well we're all sinners. And we are all, no doubt, in error on points of doctrine and theology. So, Christians who believe in evolution are simply, I believe, in error doctrinally and/or theologically. However, since this is a NON-essential I would never deny anyone fellowship if they claimed to be a Christian but believed in evolution. In fact, I have several Christian friends who are Theistic Evolutions and we enjoy GREAT fellowship on just about everything else.

Questions such as this seems to always result in and attack on the Bible. Therefore, I think that what some of the experts in the field have had to say is appropriate. For example: In the introduction to his seven volumes on The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, Sir Frederic Kenyon wrote: “The first and most important conclusion derived from the examination of them [the papyri] is the satisfactory one that they confirm the essential soundness of the existing texts. No striking or fundamental variation is shown either in the Old or the New Testament. There are no important omissions or additions of passages, and no variations which affect vital facts or doctrines. The variations of text affect minor matters, such as the order of words or the precise words used . . . But their essential importance is their confirmation, by evidence of an earlier date than was hitherto available, of the integrity of our existing texts.”—(London, 1933), p. 15. It is true that some translations of the Bible adhere more closely to what is in the original languages than others do. Modern paraphrase Bibles have taken liberties that at times alter the original meaning. Some translators have allowed personal beliefs to color their renderings. But I have found that these weaknesses can be identified by comparison of a variety of translations.

Who is to say that the two are in direct opposition of each other? Why is it so hard to believe that God used evolution to create everything? It just doesn't seem that far-fetched, to me. +5

Interesting food for thought when it comes to the question the question stated above. when Darwin developed his theory, scientists had little or no knowledge of the amazing complexity of the living cell. Modern biochemistry, the study of life at the molecular level, has revealed some of that intricacy. It has also raised serious questions and doubts about Darwin’s theory. The components of cells are made up of molecules. Cells are the building blocks of all living creatures. Professor Behe is Roman Catholic and believes in evolution to explain the later development of animals. However, he raises serious doubts about whether evolution can explain the existence of the cell. He speaks of molecular machines that “haul cargo from one place in the cell to another along ‘highways’ made of other molecules . . . Cells swim using machines, copy themselves with machinery, ingest food with machinery. In short, highly sophisticated molecular machines control every cellular process. Thus the details of life are finely calibrated, and the machinery of life enormously complex.” Now, all of this activity is taking place on what scale? A typical cell is only one thousandth of an inch [0.03 mm] across! In that infinitesimal space, complex functions vital to life are occurring. Little wonder that it has been said: “The bottom line is that the cell—the very basis of life—is staggeringly complex.” Behe argues that the cell can function only as a COMPLETE entity. Thus, it cannot be viable while being formed by slow, gradual changes induced by evolution. He uses the example of a mousetrap. This simple apparatus can function only when all its components are assembled. Each component on its own—platform, spring, holding bar, trap hammer, catch—is not a mousetrap and cannot function as such. All the parts are needed simultaneously and have to be assembled for there to be a working trap. Likewise, a cell can function as such only when all its components are assembled. He uses this illustration to explain what he terms “irreducible complexity.” This presents a major problem for the alleged process of evolution, which involves the appearance of gradually acquired, useful characteristics. Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection faced a big challenge when he said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”—Origin of Species. The irreducibly complex cell is a major stumbling block to belief in Darwin’s theory. In the first place, evolution cannot explain the leap from inanimate to animate matter. Then comes the problem of the first complex cell, which must arise in one fell swoop as an integrated unit. In other words, the cell (or, the mousetrap) must appear out of nowhere, assembled and functioning!

The rise of species by a long gradual process is in conflict with a literal interpretation of the Bible, which is not the interpretation of all Christians by any means.

many christians have decided that evolution contradicts christian beliefs. some christians have decided that evolution is consistent with christian beliefs. the problem is that, in my opinion, only god ought to determine what is sinning. god hasn't cast the lot of evolutionists into the fiery depths of hell, yet, at least, not that we know of and not for holding this belief. so, if i had to guess what's on god's mind, i'd say that christians who support evolution are no more sinners for holding their evolutionary belief and are the christians who hold non-evolutionary beliefs, as of today. of course, both groups sin in other ways.