2. If we have a lot of evidence of God, and a lot of fossil evidence of evolution, why do some people say one has to be true and the other one has to be a lie.

Answer:

If humans were to create clones, then those closes would be humans.  Whatever we can or cannot do to any fellow-human would apply to clones.  In fact, did you know that there are millions of closes alive today?  Identical twins, by definition, are natural clones.  Is it a sin to kill an identical twin?  If it is a sin to kill an identical twin, then it would be a sin to kill a clone.  Do both of a pair of identical twins have a soul?  Yes.  Of course. Therefore, if humans were to create an unnatural clone, then it would have a soul as well.

There is absolutely no reason to say that belief in the existence of God is inherently in opposition to belief in evolution.  Arguably, scientists do not “believe in” evolution.  To say that one “believes” in evolution is to say that one has faith in evolution, which really does not make sense.  Evolution is a theory.  Scientists do not “believe in” their theories in the way that Christians believe in God or in the Bible.  Scientist do not have “faith” in their theories.  They have theories that are consistent with the data and theories that are accepted as the best available explanation or even as the likely correct explanation of a set of observations, but it is the nature of science not to put “faith” in a theory.  So, to believe in God and to “believe” in evolution are not the same thing.  In science, theories are not “true.”  The best we can say about any theory is that it is consistent with all the available data.

Having said that, everything I know about the Christian God tells me that he is powerful enough to create a universe in which the process we call evolution could produce various species by a process of mutation and natural selection.  What that we know about God precludes him using a natural process that he invented/created to produce various species?  It is my belief that random processes alone could not have produced all the species in existence today.  I believe that God has intervened miraculously in the creation of species, but this belief is not a scientific one, as science only describes “natural” events.  Although I personally do not believe that the origin of species can be fully explained by natural processes, I still see no contradiction between the Christian God and the proposal that this God could have used natural evolution to produce various species from pre-existent species.

So, why, then, do some people say that God and evolution are inconsistent?  I just said that they are not inconsistent, so why do some think that they are?  My answer is that people believe this, not because they do not believe that the God of the Bible could produce species through evolution.  They believe this because they interpret Genesis chapter one to imply that the earth is only a few thousand years old.  I do not agree with this interpretation.  However, if we are convinced that the earth is only a few thousand years old, then we also cannot believe that the process we call evolution could produce the vast array of species.  This process would require many millions of years at least.  So, it is not the idea of God that is in conflict with the theory of evolution.  It is a particular interpretation of Genesis 1 that is in conflict with evolution.  You say that the scientific evidence from fossils is consistent with evolution of species. Let me add that the genetic evidence is even more strongly supportive of evolution of species.  I completely agree with you that evidence supports evolution.  However, that evidence is not inconsistent with God, it is inconsistent with a particular interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis–one that I personally believe is not a correct interpretation of the Genesis creation account.

Sorry that this is a little bit complicated, but I hope this all makes sense.

John Oakes