You mentioned in one post that you believe in the coexistence of God and macroevolution and the idea that God controls this process. Take a look at 1 Corinthians 15:39 and explain: "For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish."


I see this passage but fail to see how this is evidence against evolution.  The fact that there are "different kinds of flesh" is most likely a theological statement.  I am not sure what the scientific implications of this statement are.  One thing I can say for sure is that this passage does not teach "evolution did not happen."  In fact, it does not appear to be discussing evolution.  It is questionable that it is discussing the origin of species.

I believe one possible interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:39 is that God separately created humans, animals (mammals?), birds and fish.  I have stated many times that I believe it is very likely that God has used special creation at different points in time in the distant past.  Even if God did separately create fish, birds and mammals, which I do not deny, that does not mean that macroevolution did not occur.  In fact, it could be used as an argument for macroevolution of all fish from an original fish, of all birds from an original bird and all mammals from an original mammal.

As I see it, 1 Corinthians 15:39 could be interpreted as a theological and not a scientific statement at all, in which case it is irrelevant to the question of evolution.  Either that or it could be interpreted as a statement about the separate creation of four kinds of flesh, in which case it would definitely have implications for the origin of species, but would in fact imply macroevolution of whole classes of species from an original of that class.  In either case, this passage certainly does not teach anything which implies evolution did not occur.

Please allow me to ask you, because I do not understand.  Why do you feel this passage is an argument against macroevolution?  I simply do not see how it can be used that way.

John Oakes, PhD

Comments are closed.