How evolution undermines Salvation

[Catholic_Dude]

Here are some more:

Find out about mudskippers or cichlid fish or Anopheles gambiae or Ensatina salamanders or Drosophila pseudoobscura or Larus gulls.

These from just two journals:
Aury et al, *Global trends of whole-genome duplications revealed by the ciliate Paramecium tetraurelia,*Nature 444, 171 - 178 (09 Nov 2006)
Kutschera, *Mudskippers undermine ID claims on macroevolution, *Nature 439, (01 Feb 2006)
Strumbauer and Meyer, *Genetic divergence, speciation and morphological stasis in a lineage of African cichlid fishes , *Nature 358, 578 - 581 (13 Aug 1992)
Irwin et al, Speciation in a ring , Nature 409, 333 - 337 (18 Jan 2001)
Barton and Hewitt, *Adaptation, speciation and hybrid zones, *Nature 341, 497 - 503 (12 Oct 1989)
Sorenson et al, *Speciation by host switch in brood parasitic indigobirds, *Nature 424, 928 - 931 (21 Aug 2003)
Noor, Speciation driven by natural selection in Drosophila, Nature 375, 674 - 675 (22 Jun 1995)
Rieseberg et al, Hybrid speciation accompanied by genomic reorganization in wild sunflowers, Nature 375, 313 - 316 (25 May 1995)
Greig et al, Hybrid Speciation in Experimental Populations of Yeast, Science 29 November 2002 298: 1773-1775,
Irwin et al, Speciation by Distance in a Ring Species, Science 21 January 2005 307: 414-416
della Torre et al, Speciation within Anopholes gambiae, Science 4 October 2002 298: 115-117
Tauber and Tauber, Sympatric Speciation Based on Allelic Changes at Three Loci: Evidence from Natural Populations in Two Habitats, Science 23 September 1977 197: 1298-1299

My prediction: the creationists will not look up a single reference. They are engaged in a fundamentally dishonest mode of debate. They ask for evidence and when you give it to them they claim that it is too difficult for them to read. They want the strawman of proof in 20 words for the evolution of fish to amphibians in one generation. Slippery.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Its kind of hard to look up those nature articles because you must subscibe online, unless they are at a library.
As for “funametally dishonest” some are, but others are not, dont expect me to believe something just because the “experts” say so, true there are valid arguments/claims out there but there is also plenty of junk science.

Anyway Im not sure of your religious affiliation but do you believe humans are still evolving (and might evolve into something else)? Is there “science” that supports this claim?

 

[hecd2]

Its kind of hard to look up those nature articles because you must subscibe online, unless they are at a library.
As for “funametally dishonest” some are, but others are not, dont expect me to believe something just because the “experts” say so, true there are valid arguments/claims out there but there is also plenty of junk science.

Anyway Im not sure of your religious affiliation but do you believe humans are still evolving (and might evolve into something else)? Is there “science” that supports this claim?

Well then, get thee to a library. You could do worse.

As for the current evolution of humans, well,. of course humans are evolving. There are, on average, four mutations in the genome of every human on earth, and recombination occurs with every birth. Of course, selection will act on those variations.We are currently a very large interbreeding population, so population dynamics says it will take a long time for some of these variations to fix, but we can be sure that some will fix over timescales of hundreds of thousands or milllions of years (Jesus lived just over 2,000 years ago - almost yesterday in evolutionary terms.) One powerful definition of evolution is change in allele frequency over time - that is continuing. There is no scientific support for the idea that modern humans are the pinnacle and target of evolution.

Alec
http/www.evolutionpages.com

 

[wildleafblower]

Lord have mercy when we have so many Christians making common cause with atheists.

:ehh: Evolution isn’t biased and neither am I. As a Christian I wasn’t raised to intimidate or discriminate against my fellowman. Of course, I am my father’s daughter. He was a scientist and my mother was a saint in every sense of the word. Luv ya oodles Mom and Dad. May you rest in peace knowing your love has made all the difference in a sometimes harsh environment.

 

[drpmjhess]

A chimpanzee has no concept of moral behaviour. Chimpanzees not infrequently kill rival members of their group, and this is not murder, it is simply the way these animals behave when they vie for dominance…

Not true. Humans are at the evolutionary cutting edge of rationality, and therefore we naturally regard ourselves as standing on the pinnacle of evolution. But other animals are also evolving in this direction. Intelligence has strong survival value, and therefore in the competition for resources it has a selective advantage.

While it is true that only humans write law books and construct written moral codes, we are not entirely unique on the vast evolutionary bush of life. Ethologist and Guggenheim Fellow Marc Bekoff (University of Colorado, Boulder) has worked extensively with a wide variety of animals, and is writing a book on the evolution of cooperation and morality in animals: “Wild Justice and Fair Play: Cooperation, Forgiveness, and Morality in Animals” (University of Chicago Press).

And animal behaviorist Franz de Waal argues that while chimpanzees are not moral beings in the human sense, they nevertheless have empathy, sympathy, and reciprocity, which are buildings blocks and precursors of morality.

Petrus

 

[Atemi]

Hey Dude!

I agree with you!

Don’t worry…I will not try to ruin your rep…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I have been thinking about this and realized that evolution undermines God’s plan of salvation.

Me personally, I don’t think the theory of evolution in and of itself undermines God’s plan of salvation-- generally speaking anyway. However, I would agree that those who propose atheistic versions of evolution do attempt to undermine God’s plan of salvation. Theistic evolutionary theories, in my opinion, are, to date, not much better (on a physical level) than atheistic theories of evolution. But since they give the glory to God in ascribing an evolutionary process of creation by him, they still point toward God-- and this (on a spiritual level) is still much better than atheistic theories of evolution to be fair.

My own qualm is that when people ascribe evolutionary processes as being the means by which God created, they don’t actually address the fact that they really are saying that God really did use totally random processes when creating us. This doesn’t jive well with me and I still haven’t heard a really good explanation of why this is so.

I am often reading a criticism against intelligent design movements which accuse its proponents of claiming that God “having to” interfere with his creation is bad science and that this philisophically makes God look stupid. While I see some truth to this criticism, I don’t think it’s wholly true either.

If the intelligent design movement says that God “had to have” participated on a physical level, I would actually disagree-- even though I do believe that God did participate on a physical level with his creation.

If the intelligent design movement says that God “might have” participated on a physical level, I would actually agree-- even though I do believe that God also “might have” used evolutionary processes in between these “quantum leaps” in his creation.

Simply put, there’s nothing wrong with God choosing to interfere with his creation to bring about his will. He’s apparently done this many times throughout the Scriptures and has in fact altered the course of human history in doing so-- see the Resurrection for the best example.

Consequently, my own criticism of theistic evolutionary theorists are that some have such an adherance to it that they say it’s “impossible” for God to have participated on a physical level. They may not come out and say it. But you know darn well they think this. More to the point, they seem to be saying, based on science more than theology, that God is, based on science, virtually forbidden from participating in his creation in such as way.

More so, however (and this is the real crux in my gears against theistic evolution), whenever they condemn “irreducable complexity” as being stupid, they really do appear to be claiming that any adherance to the claim that something cannot be fully known is likewise scientifically stupid. And yet, deep within our own faith, there are indeed mysteries which cannot be fully comprehended, such as the Trinity for example-- something that the ‘science’ of theology has richly clarified for us from revelation.

So when they say that people who think it’s impossible to explain creation without God are dumb, they seem to be ignoring the fact that they themselves do in fact believe that evolution could not have happened without God causing it-- ie., they are calling themselves dumb via their own criticisms they use against the intelligent design movement in my opinion.

Even more so, when they criticize intelligent design’s proposition that creation is impossible for natural processes to have brought about (effectively relegating it to a “myterious black box”) they really do not seem to grasp that they are very much giving atheists the ammunition they need to likewise say that profound Catholic Mysteries (like the Trinity) are nothing more than than a “mysterious black box” not even worthy of examination.

I admit that there is a distinction between spirit and flesh which really does make a good distinction against the above atheistic argument-- provided one accepts this distinction. But I hardly ever hear those who propose theistic evolution expounding on this part. More often, they seem to be parroting the the science without the theology. I am sometimes left wondering if they are aware of this. And if this is not clearly explained to others, then, yes, I most certainly do think evolution all by itself can definitely undermine the salvation of others away from Christ.

 

[edwest2]

[snipped for length]

I am often reading a criticism against intelligent design movements which accuse its proponents of claiming that God “having to” interfere with his creation is bad science and that this philisophically makes God look stupid. While I see some truth to this criticism, I don’t think it’s wholly true either.

If the intelligent design movement says that God “had to have” participated on a physical level, I would actually disagree-- even though I do believe that God did participate on a physical level with his creation.

If the intelligent design movement says that God “might have” participated on a physical level, I would actually agree-- even though I do believe that God also “might have” used evolutionary processes in between these “quantum leaps” in his creation.

Simply put, there’s nothing wrong with God choosing to interfere with his creation to bring about his will. He’s apparently done this many times throughout the Scriptures and has in fact altered the course of human history in doing so-- see the Resurrection for the best example.

Consequently, my own criticism of theistic evolutionary theorists are that some have such an adherance to it that they say it’s “impossible” for God to have participated on a physical level. They may not come out and say it. But you know darn well they think this. More to the point, they seem to be saying, based on science more than theology, that God is, based on science, virtually forbidden from participating in his creation in such as way.

More so, however (and this is the real crux in my gears against theistic evolution), whenever they condemn “irreducable complexity” as being stupid, they really do appear to be claiming that any adherance to the claim that something cannot be fully known is likewise scientifically stupid. And yet, deep within our own faith, there are indeed mysteries which cannot be fully comprehended, such as the Trinity for example-- something that the ‘science’ of theology has richly clarified for us from revelation.

So when they say that people who think it’s impossible to explain creation without God are dumb, they seem to be ignoring the fact that they themselves do in fact believe that evolution could not have happened without God causing it-- ie., they are calling themselves dumb via their own criticisms they use against the intelligent design movement in my opinion.

Even more so, when they criticize intelligent design’s proposition that creation is impossible for natural processes to have brought about (effectively relegating it to a “myterious black box”) they really do not seem to grasp that they are very much giving atheists the ammunition they need to likewise say that profound Catholic Mysteries (like the Trinity) are nothing more than than a “mysterious black box” not even worthy of examination.

I admit that there is a distinction between spirit and flesh which really does make a good distinction against the above atheistic argument-- provided one accepts this distinction. But I hardly ever hear those who propose theistic evolution expounding on this part. More often, they seem to be parroting the the science without the theology. I am sometimes left wondering if they are aware of this. And if this is not clearly explained to others, then, yes, I most certainly do think evolution all by itself can definitely undermine the salvation of others away from Christ.

Bravo. I have a friend who I have known for many years. He was raised Catholic. At some point in his life, he decided evolution made us. Finally, after learning about the complexities of the cell, he told me: “I’ve got all of Stephen Gould’s books, but the cell, it’s too complex to have formed on its own.”

We are going through a period of increased criticism of religion in the US. There are only three types of people involved: 1) Those, like you, who look at evolution and divinely revealed truths and see a problem, as do I. Christ didn’t come to die for a group of neurally advanced hominids, he came to die for the sin freely committed by our first parents.
2) Those who don’t know enough to decide exactly what’s factual or what the evidence says.
3) Those who purposely come here to propose a 150 year old theory is now, after all this time, a fact. Really? It may be possible that God used some type of evolution, but He most certainly directly intervened for man many times and sent His only Son.

I think Pope Benedict has taken the proper approach. He has listened to the scientists and has seen evidence for evolution but he immediately adds that science is not able to see the entire answer. What has been revealed by God is also true. And when discussing this subject, that last part must be kept in mind.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Bravo. I have a friend who I have known for many years. He was raised Catholic. At some point in his life, he decided evolution made us. Finally, after learning about the complexities of the cell, he told me: “I’ve got all of Stephen Gould’s books, but the cell, it’s too complex to have formed on its own.”

And the theistic evolutionary theorists appears to simply push this “irreducibly complex” argument back further to the spiritual realm, saying that nothing that exists can exist without God’s Spirit upholding it.

Keep in mind that they might be right you know. However, to the atheist, this appears as a cop-out, just pushing the “God of the Gaps” back even further than intelligent design does.

We are going through a period of increased criticism of religion in the US. There are only three types of people involved:

1. Those, like you, who look at evolution and divinely revealed truths and see a problem, as do I. Christ didn’t come to die for a group of neurally advanced hominids, he came to die for the sin freely committed by our first parents.

Keep in mind this doesn’t mean it can’t reconciled. I just don’t think we have all the answers on this yet. I do tend to think that Christ dies on the cross to primarilly redeem man. However, the entire creation is indeed groaning in labour pains in joyful expectation for the Sons of God to be revealed. It does seem possible to me that Jesus may indeed retores the entire creative order when he culminates the Judgement Day and innagurates all of creation into the New Heavnes and New Earth.

1. Those who don’t know enough to decide exactly what’s factual or what the evidence says.

I know I don’t. I think the theory of evolution really does raise some critical questions regarding the origins of our theological body-- with most people simply avoiding the hard questions in favor of what’s been revealed thus far.

1. Those who purposely come here to propose a 150 year old theory is now, after all this time, a fact. Really? It may be possible that God used some type of evolution, but He most certainly directly intervened for man many times and sent His only Son.

I do think that evolution is a fact though.

Exactly how it happens remains a mystery. But I’m still open to God’s creation of Adam from the dust of the earth. And every attempt that I’ve read trying to reconcile evolution with the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib has utterly failed in my opinion. Perhaps Adam could be formed by evolutionary processes. I don’t think Eve was though.

I’m starting to think it was a little of both to be fair.

I think Pope Benedict has taken the proper approach. He has listened to the scientists and has seen evidence for evolution but he immediately adds that science is not able to see the entire answer. What has been revealed by God is also true. And when discussing this subject, that last part must be kept in mind.

And, to be fair, I think he has admitted that, at this time, he just doesn’t see any way to reconcile some of the finer details. But this doesn’t mean they can’t be reconciled-- and I don’t think he’s advocating irreducable complexity when admitting that he currently doesn’t see any way to reconcile some of the finer details-- even if he does hold that God is involved in an intelligent project through his Divine Wisdom.

Theistic evolution does imply intelligent design regardless of how it’s worded. And keen-minded atheists see right through this part.

God bless,
Ed

God bless you too Ed.

 

[drpmjhess]

Exactly how it happens remains a mystery. But I’m still open to God’s creation of Adam from the dust of the earth. And every attempt that I’ve read trying to reconcile evolution with the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib has utterly failed in my opinion. Perhaps Adam could be formed by evolutionary processes. I don’t think Eve was though.

Why would Eve not be “created from the dust” just like the rest of the evolving hominid population?

 

[foolishmortal]

The fact that a famous museum has an ape or gorilla giving a woman a branch in the style of the Michaelangelo painting and that the ichtus fish was redesigned to have legs and say Darwin show that the evolutionists, the ones who know what’s going on behind the scenes, have another religion to replace Christianity. I learned that Mao had children first read Darwin, not Mao’s book or a book by Lenin or Stalin or Marx to replace other religions from schoolchildrens’ minds . Why the religious imagery instead of just a scientific presentation of evolution? Why a white martyrdom for those who do not believe in it when scientific findings were never meant to be dogmatized but, dare I say, evolving? Evolution is a false religion masquerading as a science–that’s why. It has nothing to do with science. If it were any truth to it (well, microevolution can be proven, but that isn’t what’s emphasized), scientists have little faith in it by forcing us to believe it or get bad grades or no grants or scholarships. They once applauded Piltdown Man (which shows little regard for the scientific method) and, well, you give me that flying spaghetti monster (how that goes with creationism, I never could figure); I give you panevolution–alien seed coming here and evolving into us–the latest in the denial of God’s creation of us as humans that actually, in their opinion, merited a Hollywood movie in recent times. Evolution is a religion for true Nazis who find that some people are less of humans and can and should be eliminated as useless feeders and this religion is adhered to by some government-level conservatives as well as liberals (esp. at the UN, their affiliates, and other fascist organizations that rival only the terrorists in evil and ground covered)–those who cruelly make these people think they are being saved from the evil conservatives who hate them.

 

[melbourne_guy]

Evolution is a fact, its now come to a point where you could lose your job as a scientist if you debated evolution with out providing hard evidence against it. We now have a sound explanation of how the first cell was created, over 2billion years ago, leaving no room for a creator. The only thing that keeps me the least bit agnostic is the fact that we havent found what came befor the big bang, how did something come from nothing? researching cosmology i found out ( pls somebody correct me if im wrong as i dont know much about cosmology and id like to learn more) that theres no such thing a nothingness(a vaccuum of nothing), and virtual particles occupy all of space. These virtual particles anhilate each other causing energy, which leads to existance, if this hypothsis turns into a theory it would essenitally spell the end to whatever belief in a deity i had left.

 

[melbourne_guy]

which is sad cus id prefer the existance of eternal life compared to total anhilation. Athiesm makes me depressed .

 

[The_Barbarian]

Evolution is a fact, its now come to a point where you could lose your job as a scientist if you debated evolution with out providing hard evidence against it.

You could lose a job as a scientist for arguing anything without providing hard evidence for your position. It’s part of the job to use evidence.

We now have a sound explanation of how the first cell was created, over 2billion years ago, leaving no room for a creator.

Three errors there:

1. Evolution is not about the origin of life.
2. We are still not sure precisely how life began in scientific terms.
3. None of this rules out a creator.

The only thing that keeps me the least bit agnostic is the fact that we havent found what came befor the big bang…

In other words, if God didn’t make the universe the way you want Him to do it, you aren’t going to believe in Him.

 

[drpmjhess]

The only thing that keeps me the least bit agnostic is the fact that we havent found what came befor the big bang, how did something come from nothing? researching cosmology i found out ( pls somebody correct me if im wrong as i dont know much about cosmology and id like to learn more) that theres no such thing a nothingness(a vaccuum of nothing), and virtual particles occupy all of space. .

Melbourne Guy, evolution says nothing about ruling out a creator; it merely explains the diversity of life on earth. Ignore foolishmortal – his vacuous ramblings are unilluminating, warmed-over nonsense from various Young Earth Creationist sites.

I would recommend you read a book by Guy J. Consolmagno, S.J., an astronomer at the Vatican Observatory. In his autobiogrpahical Brother Astronomer, Consolmagno discusses his work and his Catholic faith. See more at clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/GConsolmagno.html. In fact, I think you might find the website of the Vatican Observatory interesting, although there is not a lot up front on their programs. It’s best to click on the various staff pages to get an idea of the sort of astronomy and cosmology they do. I’m leaving for Hawaii in a few days to speak on theology and evolution, and Chris Corbally, S.J. will be speaking in the same session clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/CCorbally.html

Petrus

 

[reggieM]

My own qualm is that when people ascribe evolutionary processes as being the means by which God created, they don’t actually address the fact that they really are saying that God really did use totally random processes when creating us. This doesn’t jive well with me and I still haven’t heard a really good explanation of why this is so.

Agreed, along with much else in the post.

The evolutionary proposition claims to explain all of nature and the universe without ever having any need or evidence for God.

It is claimed that there is no evidence for God’s working in the universe or nature – nothing that can be observed, no indication at all.

Therefore, blind evolutionary processes are responsible for the creation of all things. This is the atheistic position. Some will say that “evolution does not eliminate God”. But the fact is that “evolution does not include God”. As atheists have said, evolution makes it possible to have no need for God.

When people say that God used evolution to create all things, they’re not admitting that science does not say this and that science has no need to place God anywhere in the process.

God is “added” to a natural process that has no need for that addition, according to evolutionary process. When asked what God actually did in the process, there is no answer and there is no need for God to actually have done anything because the process would work exactly the same way if there was no God.

 

[reggieM]

Theistic evolution does imply intelligent design regardless of how it’s worded. And keen-minded atheists see right through this part.

Agreed.

If God is involved in the process, then it’s not blind natural laws alone which are responsible.

 

[drpmjhess]

God is “added” to a natural process that has no need for that addition, according to evolutionary process. When asked what God actually did in the process, there is no answer and there is no need for God to actually have done anything because the process would work exactly the same way if there was no God.

Yes. Catholics who believe in gravity or the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease or the plate tectonic theory add their religious experience of God to a naturally explainable process, just as with evolution. We don’t imagine a muscle-builder God pushing apart Africa and the Americas with God almighty arms to create the mid-Atlantic volcanic ridge. Rather, we assume that natural processes cause plate movement, and earthquakes and volcanoes, and that natural processes cause speciation and the evolution of genetic diversity. We build our personal experience of God on top of this naturalism.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The evolutionary proposition claims to explain all of nature and the universe without ever having any need or evidence for God.

No. It merely explains the way living populations change over time.

It is claimed that there is no evidence for God’s working in the universe or nature – nothing that can be observed, no indication at all.

No, Nothing in evolutionary theory, or science in general says that. It cannot even say whether or not such evidence might exist. If your faith is not strong enough, science can’t fix it up for you.

Therefore, blind evolutionary processes are responsible for the creation of all things.

No. It only describes how populations change over time, by changing allele frequencies.

This is the atheistic position.

No, technically, what you are describing is agnosticism, but (of course) it is not what science says about things. It’s just what you (think? hope?) science says.

Some will say that “evolution does not eliminate God”.

Pope Benedict XVI, for example.

But the fact is that “evolution does not include God”.

Neither does chemistry. Is chemistry atheistic? Plumbing doesn’t, either. Is plumbing atheistic?

As atheists have said, evolution makes it possible to have no need for God.

If so, physics does a better job, since it can explain all of nature, not just biology, by natural processes. But, the error you and atheists make, is thinking that science can explain everything.

When people say that God used evolution to create all things, they’re not admitting that science does not say this and that science has no need to place God anywhere in the process.

When people say that God used evolution to create all things, (if anyone actually says that) they are making a major error. Evolution is the way God created the diversity of living things. But nothing else. Ignorance is the enemy.

God created nature and used it to create all other things in this world. You can accept His creation as it is, or reject it. But that won’t change anything. It won’t even necessarily cost you your salvation. But if you accept His creation, His way, it would bring you closer to Him.

 

[drpmjhess]

God created nature and used it to create all other things in this world. You can accept His creation as it is, or reject it. But that won’t change anything. It won’t even necessarily cost you your salvation. But if you accept His creation, His way, it would bring you closer to Him.

Nicely put, Barbarian!

 

[The_Barbarian]

I have been thinking about this and realized that evolution undermines God’s plan of salvation.

Seems unlikely that anything God created would undermine His plan of salvation.

There is nothing about evolution that says after man comes around evolution must stop, rather man must keep evolving as should everything else. At this point Jesus taking on human nature simply took on a stage of human evolution not a single once and for all defined human nature. Working both back in time and in to the future evolution means man isnt unique because at each extreme only semi-humans exist, for example where was the line drawn between monkey and man, and at what point was that individual created in God’s image?

It is because we are in the image of God in spririt and in being moral beings, not because our brain capacity is a certain level, or our thumbs can adduct in a certain way that is impossible for early humans. It has nothing to do with our physical appearance.

Monkeys are not created in God’s image, only full humans are.

So, were Neandertals or H. erectus “full humans”? How about advanced H. erectus/ archaic H. sapiens? We really can’t draw the line between the two. I suppose God can, but how much do you think we have to look like God physically to be in His image?

And according to Catholic teaching, God is a spirit, without a body.

**God is a simple being or substance excluding every kind of composition, physical or metaphysical. Physical or real composition is either substantial or accidental – substantial, if the being in question consists of two or more substantial principles, forming parts of a composite whole, as man for example, consists of body and soul; accidental, if the being in question, although simple in its substance (as is the human soul), is capable of possessing accidental perfections (like the actual thoughts and volition of man’s soul) not necessarily identical with its substance. Now it is clear that an infinite being cannot be substantially composite, for this would mean that infinity is made up of the union or addition of finite parts – a plain contradiction in terms. Nor can accidental composition be attributed to the infinite since even this would imply a capacity for increased perfection, which the very notion of the infinite excludes. There is not, therefore, and cannot be any physical or real composition in God. **
Catholic Encyclopedia

So He isn’t really a big old, bearded white guy in robe and sandals.

It also undermines the fact Adam was a unique individual but rather now he is simply the first of the monkey men with future men (and somehow women) evolving around him.

Genesis explains what makes Adam and his desecendants different. It is in God directly breathing life into him, an immortal soul different from the other animals.

As for the future, what happens when man evolves into something else?

Same as in the past. Nothing changes so far as God is concerned. If Adam and Eve were the parents of all living humans, then we have evolved considerably from them. God is still with us, and still loves us. If we evolve further, why would that be a problem?

Remember, “in His image” is not a reference to our physical appearances.