On Saturday I picked up a few LPs at the most reliable of my record-buying haunts. The best of them was The Comedy (1962) by The Modern Jazz Quartet, a colourful suite of tunes inspired by the Italian commedia dell'arte. It's a record (Fig. 4) that showcases the quartet's European influences. While enjoyable, it's a little light on the soulfulness that underpins their best work. It's interesting to contrast this record with its moodier follow-up, Lonely Woman, issued later the same year.

Acquired alongside it was a record exemplifying a very different aspect of comedy: The Sick Humor of Lenny Bruce. Originally released in 1959, my copy (Fig. 5) is from a 1987 re-issue (the same year Bruce's name came up in the lyrics of a certain song I then loved). I've read a fair amount about him over the years, but had never heard any of Bruce's comedy until now. I can't say it made me laugh, but it probably would have done had I been a young man in '59: I could see the appeal of it, at least. My sense of humour, I fear, has been eroded over time. I'm less often amused than I once was.

---

1987 was also the year The Green Flame was published. This is a dual-language anthology of Italian poetry (originals on the left, English translations facing them) that I finished reading on Friday. It was edited and presumably translated by Alessandro Gentili and Catherine O'Brien. Even though the word 'contemporary' appears in its subtitle, most of the poems in it are from the early-to-mid-20th Century. It includes authors I was already somewhat familiar with (such as Montale, Pavese, Ungaretti, Pasolini & Spaziani) along with others I knew only by name (Marinetti, Quasimodo, Sereni, Zanzotto) and still more I didn't know at all (notably Saba & Luzi).

My copy had been freely annotated in pencil by a previous owner. This was evidently someone fluent in Italian who was well able to take a critical view of the translators' work. Several translated words or phrases are glossed with clarifications or even crossed out and 'corrected'. As a monoglot I'm obliged to take the work of translators on trust, so it was interesting here for me to see a more knowledgeable reader's engagement with their renderings. There were some instances where the pencilled-in alternatives struck me as clearly preferable to the printed text, whereas most of the time I was unable to judge whether the 'edited' wording was any better than the original. In any event, it's a good anthology that has filled a gap on my poetry shelves.

---

When I'm working I like to have a large, thick, ruled notebook to scribble in. If I can’t make notes I struggle to think straight. With my employers being much too cheap to supply decent stationery, I buy my own. My choice for the past decade has been the Collins Ideal 6448, a casebound A4 book with 384 ruled pages. When I went to order a new one recently I was disconcerted to find them out of stock – which I hope is only a temporary state of affairs. As an alternative I bought myself the next best thing I could find: a Ryman A4 'Bumper' notebook. This has fewer pages (352) and thinner paper (70gsm rather than 80) than the 'Ideal', but it does have the advantage of being about half the price. I started writing in my new Ryman book on Monday, and think it will do the job well enough.

Thank you for changing. Thank you for working to become happier (for the lack of a better word) and calmer.

I, too, want to work on becoming happier (for the lack of better word) and calmer. But it´s really not that easy.. It happens, from time to time (actually quite often), that my mind takes a minor unpleasant event and spins it out into a far bigger story of what's wrong, what could end up even more wrong, and how solutions to that might be even more wrong, leading into a total dead lock of oh shit.

The other day, I was watching an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond where Raymond buys a special, expensive, rare, fad collectible card for his daughter. You may know the episode, Hackidu. It's a good one. Paul Reubens, best known for his character Pee-wee Herman, steals the show.

The point is, it made me very emotional, thinking of all the nice toys my parents bought me as a kid, including many that were fads, expensive, difficult to obtain, or simply extremely thoughtful. I grew up in the 90s, and so this list includes things like Beanie Babies, Tamagotchis, baseball cards, video games, educational games, books, scooters, backpacks featuring TV shows I liked, and much more than I can honestly remember.

I'm very grateful for that. I hate to say, “it's the thought that counts,” as though I didn't enjoy the toys themselves, but truthfully, the thought and love they put into those choices is very meaningful to me.

I feel a bit strange being so emotional over physical things, especially when I dislike consumerism, but it was the thoughts that matter most. They show their love through gifts, to a large extent, and I am very touched.

#Miscellaneous

As a student at Kwantlen Polytechnic University, you expect the student association to safeguard your interests: fees collected should be spent transparently, equitably and in ways that enhance student life. Instead, in the past three months rumours and emerging evidence suggest the KSA board, lead by Ishant (Goel) Goyal, President and VP University Affairs Paramvir Singh, VP Finance and Operations Manmeet Kaur under the oversight of Executive Director Timothii Ragavan, may have veered far from that standard. This is not about minor budgeting mishaps; this is about institutional accountability, governance and whether student funds are being used in ways that reflect their stated purpose.

What we’ve heard

Silver coins for a “44th anniversary”

The board authorized the purchase of ten silver coins, each weighing under 10 grams, celebrating the KSA’s “44th anniversary”. These coins feature Sikh and other religious symbols and, by reports, were purchased at approximately CAD $70 per coin. By comparison, the spot price of silver in Canada today is approximately CAD $2.33 per gram.

If the coins truly weigh 10g each, then the raw metal cost would be around CAD $23.30 per coin (10 g × $2.33/gram). If under 10 g, the cost would be lower. That means paying CAD $70 is about three times the metal‐value alone.

On its face: if the rationale was a simple commemorative coin for the KSA’s 44th anniversary, the symbolism fails for two reasons: the coins don’t clearly tie to the “44th anniversary” motif (they instead appear more aligned with Diwali and religious representation), and the cost premium appears excessive given the metal value.

Hanging Basket Chairs

You may have seen these hanging basket chairs on campuses. We have heard allegations that the cost of these were approximately CAD $1,950 each (total ~CAD $20,000). But current wholesale listings on major procurement platforms for the same model are in the $300-600 range.

What justified the association spending $2,000 per unit on these chairs?

Overpriced nut baskets and dresses distributed to students

For Diwali celebrations, large expenditures on “nut baskets” and dresses which were given to students was alleged. Details (quantities, vendor quotes) remain vague; however, the pattern of gifting combined with high unit cost raises valid questions about procurement, tendering and justification. Who were the vendors who were contracted for this? Why is this not being disclosed to students and campus reporters?

$250 plants that look like Ikea palms in Rona pots

A further allegation: that the association spent CAD $250 each on plants that appear to be repotted Ikea palms placed into CAD $28 pots sourced from Rona. If true, this suggests markup and perhaps a lack of competitive sourcing.

Nearly $10,000 on Diwali decorations across campuses

The board allegedly spent nearly $10,000 on Diwali decorations just for the installation across campuses. The decorations themselves were purchased separately by the association, adding even more cost on top of the installation fee. Students effectively paid twice: first for the decor, then for the labour to put it up. This is yet another opaque expense pushed through by a board and Finance VP who appear to exercise little scrutiny over vendor pricing, procurement practices or whether spending aligns with the association’s mandate.

Why this Matters

Our student fees are not a slush fund for luxury items, overpriced decor, or vendor contracts that nobody outside the board has ever seen. They are paid with the expectation of responsible stewardship and transparency.

The examples above point to a pattern:

• High-cost purchases without clear student benefit
• No competitive procurement process
• No public vendor information
• No accountability from the Finance VP Manmeet Kaur or Executive Director Timothii Ragavan
• A culture of secrecy rather than service

But questionable spending is only half the picture. The governance failures behind it are just as serious.

A Board That Barely Shows Up

The Runner’s recent reporting highlights an equally alarming issue: the board’s growing inability to even run its own meetings.

At the Nov. 21 council meeting, the KSA failed to vote on three key election-regulation changes, not because of disagreement, but because councillors simply didn’t show up.

Zero councillors attended in person, despite the room being booked specifically to avoid connectivity issues.

Attendance dropped from ten online participants to seven, below the quorum of eight.

This marks the third meeting where critical governance items were delayed due to lack of quorum.

Councilors receive an honorarium of $125 per meeting, yet many appear to:

• log in silently
• sit muted,
• write a line or two in chat (mainly to vote yae or nae)
• and disappear before the meeting concludes.

These honoraria are meant to defray any commuting costs so that these meetings are held in person. They are not just an extra source of income for clicking on a meeting invite and sitting quietly in chat.

Meanwhile, these same elected officials oversee procurement, student-club funding, election rules, and the millions in student fees flowing through the association each year.

If the people responsible for oversight aren’t present, oversight doesn’t happen. And when oversight doesn’t happen, waste, mismanagement, and unchecked spending become predictable outcomes.

KPU Students Deserve Better

Good governance is not complicated. It requires councillors who:

• attend meetings in person,
• participate meaningfully,
• stay for the full agenda,
• and uphold their responsibility to the students who elected them.

Good procurement is also not complicated. It requires competitive pricing, transparent reporting, proper documentation, and accountability to the student body.

Right now, the KSA appears to be falling short on both fronts.

SIGN THE PETITION FOR A FORENSIC AUDIT

For years, students have paid millions in mandatory fees with little transparency, accountability, or oversight. Yet these funds continue to be misspent while students across Kwantlen campuses receive uneven and inconsistent services.

It’s time to demand better.

We the KPU students need to organize, speak out, and call for a FULL, INDEPENDENT, FORENSIC AUDIT of the KSA.

Please share the following link with every body you know: sign and share the petition for accountability and reform: https://c.org/FzsKZB7gMZ

We also call on the Province of British Columbia to amend and strengthen the B.C. Societies Act to ensure student-funded organizations can never again operate without transparent, democratic governance.

Enough is enough.

GO HOOSIERS!

Today we have two IU basketball games to follow. First up will be the Lady Hoosiers as the IU Women's Basketball Team travels to meet the Florida Gulf Coast Lady Eagles. This game is scheduled to Tipoff at Noon, my local time.

Later today the IU Men's Basketball Team will be hosting the Kansas State Wildcats. This game is scheduled to start at 19:00, my local time.

I have conflicting obligations that may prevent my following both of these games in their entirety, but I'll listen to each of them as much I can.

GO HOOSIERS!

And so the adventure continues.

A Fault Line Investigation — Published by The Beacon Press
Published: November 25, 2025
https://thebeaconpress.org/the-muslim-brotherhood-in-2025-designated-terrorists-previously-usaid-funded

Executive Breath

The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928, has for seven decades been simultaneously:

• Banned as a terrorist organization by Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Russia
  
• Treated as a legitimate political actor by the U.S. State Department and EU
  
• Receiving U.S. taxpayer funds through USAID “civil-society” grants (average $35–50 million/year 2018–2025)
  

On November 24, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order directing Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to evaluate designating certain Brotherhood chapters as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs).

The Official U.S. Position (Pre-November 24, 2025)

The State Department has historically viewed the Brotherhood as a “non-violent Islamist political movement” despite its Hamas ties and October 7, 2023, rocket support from the Lebanese chapter (State Dept Country Reports on Terrorism 2024). USAID granted $35–50 million annually to MB-linked NGOs (e.g., Islamic Relief Worldwide, $10M in 2023) for “democracy promotion” (GAO 2025).

The Money Trail (U.S. Taxpayer Funds)

Since 2011, U.S. aid to MB-affiliated groups totals $300 million+:

• 2011–2015: $100M to Egyptian MB offshoots for “election monitoring” (USAID 2015 audit)
  
• 2016–2020: $80M to U.S.-based MB legacy groups (CAIR, ISNA) for “civil rights” (OpenSecrets 2025)
  
• 2021–2025: $120M to international MB NGOs (e.g., $15M to Jordanian chapter, USAID 2024)
  

The Qatar-Turkey Axis (Open Patrons)

Qatar hosts MB leaders and funds MB media (Al Jazeera, $500M/year). Turkey's AKP (Erdogan) aligns with MB ideology, providing $100M+ in aid to MB-linked Syrian groups (RAND 2024).

The Arab Ban List (Evidence Dossiers)

• Egypt (2013): Banned as terrorist post-coup; evidence of MB-Hamas arms smuggling (Egyptian court ruling 2013)
  
• UAE (2014): Federal Law No. 7; MB as “radical group” with 1,000+ arrests (UAE Ministry of Interior 2014)
  
• Saudi Arabia (2014): Royal decree; MB “extremist” for inciting violence (Saudi Gazette 2014)
  

The 1991 Explanatory Memorandum: Key Snippets (Seized 2004, Entered as Evidence 2008)

The “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America” (Mohamed Akram, 1991) outlines the MB’s U.S. strategy as a “Civilization-Jihadist Process”:

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

“It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes…”

Attachment lists 29 U.S. groups as “our organizations and the organizations of our friends,” including ISNA, NAIT, ICNA, MSA — many now CAIR affiliates (Holy Land Foundation trial exhibits, DOJ 2008).

2025 Status: Trump’s Executive Order (November 24)

President Trump signed an executive order directing Rubio and Bessent (consulting AG Pam Bondi and DNI Tulsi Gabbard) to submit a 30-day report on designating MB chapters in Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt as FTOs/SDGTs under 8 U.S.C. § 1189 and EO 13224. Action due within 45 days if appropriate — asset freezes, travel bans, criminal support penalties. Justification: MB’s Hamas ties and post-October 7 rocket attacks (White House Fact Sheet, November 24, 2025).

---

Sources (Full Attribution — Pillar 3: Truth Only)

1. Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Begins Process to Designate Certain Muslim Brotherhood Chapters… – White House, Nov 24, 2025
   
2. Designation of Certain Muslim Brotherhood Chapters as Foreign Terrorist Organizations… – White House Executive Order, Nov 24, 2025
   
3. An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America – Investigative Project on Terrorism (English translation), 1991
   
4. Holy Land Foundation Trial Exhibits – DOJ 2008 (declassified)
   
5. UAE Federal Law No. 7/2014 – UAE Ministry of Interior
   
6. Egyptian Court Ruling 2013 – Egyptian Judiciary

---

Action Demand (Pillar 7)

Demand MB funding transparency – contact USAID: “Audit all grants to MB-linked NGOs since 2011.”
→ USAID Contact

---

Support The Beacon's Breath

• RSS Feed
  
• Buy Me a Coffee
  
• Monero (XMR): Coming Q1 2026

Whenever someone (thinking currently of Zohran Mamdani, but insert anyone’s name here) advocates having the government do something to acutally help people, you typically get two responses.

One is from the corporate centrists, who say, “well, of course we’d like to do something like that, but it’s just not realistic.”

The other, from the right, derides the whole idea as “people wanting free stuff.”

Let’s start with the centrists, shall we? This is the kind of Bill Clinton politics that has infected the Democratic party at all levels. And it’s a con. Because of course what’s realistic is simply what you’re willing to fight for.

Let’s take single payer healthcare, for example. They’ve told us for decades that free at point of service health care like so many other countries have is not realistic. This has proven true in that no one has been willing to fight for it. So of course it’s not realistic. The absolute best face you can put on this is that it’s a colossally incompetent negotiating tactic, where you give in to your opponent before you even talk to them. The more accurate face, I believe, is that it’s a calculated dodge—you call something you don’t want to do unrealistic. Then you don’t have to get into “Actually I get huge donations from Aetna and United Healthcare, so I don’t want to fight for a health care system that works.”

History is littered with examples of things that were considered unrealistic until they happened. Like the USA becoming an independent country! Like France beheading the king! Like Apartheid ending without massive bloodshed! Big, revolutionary changes can happen as long as people are willing to fight for them. Duh.

And now let’s go on to free stuff, shall we? Regular readers, know that I, a non-rich person, went to school with a lot of rich people.

And you know who gets a TON of free stuff? Rich people.

For example, rich people get a free college education. I don’t mean they get full scholarships or anything—I just mean that they don’t pay a dime for college.

Because their parents pay.

“Ah, but that’s not free!” you might say, but I submit that you are wrong. If you, a legal adult, get to attend college without paying for it, that’s free. The fact that your parents paid for it doesn’t make it any less free to you. Did you earn that money? Or was it given to you by your parents? What does free mean?

So when people deride people “wanting free stuff,” they should really include rich people. A house and a college education are, for most people, the biggest investments of their lifetimes. And rich people get one or both of them for free.

This isn’t derided in the media—indeed, saving up so you can give your children hundreds of thousands of dollars they did nothing to earn is portrayed as a thing that good, responsbile parents do for their children. I’m not going to get into that—I just want to point out that there are a LOT of people out there gathering lifelong benefits from stuff they got for free.

You cannot argue that an 18-year-old who gets a free education from their parents has earned it. They haven’t. Sure, maybe they worked hard in high school (though at least in the places I went to school, the wealthiest kids were not the ones who worked the hardest), but so do a lot of people who don’t get a free college education.

Given how many people get a free college education and aren’t vilified for it, we have to conclude that the right’s ostensible opposition to people getting things they haven’t paid for from wages they’ve earned is not sincere. I mean, yes, the right is sincere only about power and domination, but they’ve done such a good job indoctrinating us into the idea that you have to earn everything you get in life that most of us can’t even see the glaring exception that’s all around us.

So neither the “realism” nor the “free stuff” arguments make any logical or moral sense. Maybe there are sound arguments to be made against free transportation, free college, free health care. If so, I’d be interested in hearing them. But, so far, I haven’t.

TL;DR * If you need power, flexibility, and universal compatibility → stay with sudo.
* If you prefer lean, mean, and less to go wrong → give doas a spin.
Whichever you pick, remember: the real power isn’t the command you run, it’s the judgment you apply before you hit Enter. Keep experimenting, stay curious, and own your admin choices! 🚀

The Heavyweight: sudo

Aspect	Details
History & Adoption	Born in the early ’90s, sudo is the de‑facto standard on most Linux distros and BSDs. It’s battle‑tested, heavily audited, and supported by a massive community.
Feature Set	Extremely feature‑rich: fine‑grained per‑command permissions, logging, authentication timestamps, SELinux integration, plugin architecture, and more.
Configuration	Uses /etc/sudoers (or files under /etc/sudoers.d). The syntax is powerful but can be verbose and tricky; a misplaced comma can lock you out.
Security Model	By default, requires the invoking user’s password (or can be set to NOPASSWD). Supports “lecture” warnings, authentication retries, and timestamp caching.
Performance	Slightly heavier because it parses a large policy file and forks a helper process. In practice the overhead is negligible for interactive use.
Portability	Works everywhere—from tiny embedded devices to massive server farms. Most tutorials assume sudo.

Bottom line: If you need granular control, audit trails, or you’re working in an environment where everyone already knows sudo, stick with it. It’s the Swiss Army knife of privilege escalation.

The Lightweight Challenger: doas

Aspect	Details
Origin	Developed by OpenBSD as a simpler, safer alternative to sudo. It’s deliberately minimalistic.
Feature Set	Stripped down to the essentials: run a command as another user (default root). No per‑command whitelists, no timestamps, no fancy plugins.
Configuration	One tiny file: /etc/doas.conf. Syntax is straightforward—think “allow user X to run anything as root”. Example: permit :wheel or permit nopass :wheel.
Security Model	By default, requires the invoking user’s password unlessyou specify nopass. Because the codebase is tiny, the attack surface is smaller, which many security‑focused folks love.
Performance	Faster startup (les parsing) and a smaller binary (~30 KB). On low‑resource systems the difference is noticeable.
Portability	Primarily shipped with OpenBSD, but ports exist for Linux, NetBSD, and a few other *nixes. Not as universally pre‑installed as sudo.

Bottom line: If you crave simplicity, want a tiny, auditable binary, and don’t need the bells and whistles, doas is the sleek, no‑nonsense option. It’s the minimalist’s dream—“just works” for most everyday admin tasks.

When to Choose Which?

Situation	Recommended Tool
*Enterprise environments with complex policies	sudo (granular ACLs, logging, existing toling)
Security‑hardening where a tiny codebase matters	doas (smaller attack surface)
*Systems with limited storage or memory (IoT, containers)	doas (tiny footprint)
Cross‑distribution scripts/tutorials	sudo (everyone expects it)
*You just want something that “just works” without a manual	doas (simple config, less to break)

A Quick Word‑play Wrap‑Up

Think of sudo as the *Swiss watchmaker—complex, precise, and built for every conceivable scenario. doas is the digital watch—clean, lightweight, and gets the job done without the extra gears. Both keep time, but one does it with more flair.

antes decía esto y aquello hasta que fue comprendiendo el movimiento de las palabras / las fue domando y ahora lo que no dice es porque no quiere

Terza Rima Purgatory DLC

Selected remastered poems. To be released in December 2025.

Few questions generate more heat than the relationship between evolution and faith. For many, these seem like irreconcilable worldviews locked in an eternal struggle. One side appears to demand blind faith while ignoring scientific evidence, the other seems to reduce human existence to mere chemistry and chance. But is this conflict as inevitable as we've been led to believe?

The answer might surprise you. Millions of Christians worldwide see no fundamental contradiction between accepting evolutionary science and maintaining a robust faith. The real disagreement isn't between Christianity and evolution—it's among Christians themselves about how to interpret scripture and relate it to scientific discovery.

The Spectrum of Christian Views

Christianity is hardly monolithic on this question. Christian perspectives on evolution span a wide spectrum, each with thoughtful proponents and long theological traditions behind them.

Young Earth Creationism takes Genesis literally, believing God created the universe in six 24-hour days roughly 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. Proponents argue this honors scripture's authority and preserves key doctrines about human origins and the fall. This view remains popular in some evangelical circles, particularly in the United States.

Old Earth Creationism accepts the ancient age of Earth and universe but questions macroevolution. Some in this camp accept natural selection within species but believe God specially created distinct “kinds” of organisms. Others accept more evolutionary change but see God intervening at key points, especially in human origins.

Theistic Evolution (sometimes called evolutionary creation) holds that God created the universe and established natural laws, including evolution, as the mechanism through which life developed. Evolution isn't opposed to God's creative work—it is God's creative work. This view is embraced by many mainstream Protestant denominations, Catholic theologians, Orthodox Christians, and organizations like BioLogos.

Metaphorical Interpretation approaches Genesis as ancient theological literature rather than scientific or historical reporting. From this perspective, the creation accounts address profound questions about why God created and humanity's relationship with the divine, not the precise mechanisms of how creation unfolded.

The Catholic Church's Position

The Catholic Church offers an instructive example of how a major Christian tradition has navigated these questions. Far from seeing evolution as a threat, recent popes have affirmed compatibility between evolutionary science and Catholic faith.

Pope Pius XII's 1950 encyclical Humani Generis acknowledged that evolution could be studied as a serious hypothesis. Pope John Paul II went further in 1996, stating that evolution is “more than a hypothesis” given converging evidence from multiple scientific disciplines. Pope Francis has affirmed that God is not “a magician with a magic wand” but rather created beings and allowed them to develop according to internal laws.

The Church's position maintains certain boundaries. It insists that God creates each human soul directly, that humans possess a spiritual dimension transcending biology, and that our capacity for relationship with God reflects genuine divine intention, not cosmic accident. Within those theological guardrails, Catholics are free to accept the scientific consensus on evolution.

Why Some Christians Embrace Evolution

For Christians who accept evolutionary science, several theological considerations prove compelling.

God's sovereignty isn't threatened by natural processes. If God established the laws of physics, why couldn't God establish biological laws? A God powerful enough to create ex nihilo is surely capable of creating through evolutionary processes. The intricacy and elegance of evolution might even reveal more about divine creativity than instant creation would.

Genesis can be read as theological literature. The creation accounts bear hallmarks of ancient Near Eastern cosmology and employ poetic, symbolic language. Their purpose may be to establish theological truths—that God alone creates, that creation is good, that humans bear God's image—rather than to provide a scientific chronology. Reading Genesis this way doesn't diminish scripture's authority; it honors the type of literature it actually is.

The image of God transcends biology. Whatever our evolutionary history, humans remain uniquely capable of moral reasoning, creativity, self-reflection, and relationship with the divine. Our special status comes from God's intention and relationship with us, not from biological discontinuity with other creatures.

Science and faith address different questions. Science excels at describing natural mechanisms and processes—the “how” questions. Faith addresses meaning, purpose, morality, and ultimate reality—the “why” questions. Many Christians see these as complementary rather than competing ways of knowing.

The Sticking Points

Despite these reconciliations, genuine tensions remain. The most significant center on human origins and the historicity of Adam and Eve.

If humans evolved from earlier hominid species, were we ever genuinely distinct enough to represent a “special creation”? At what point did God breathe a soul into evolving hominids? Was there a literal Adam and Eve, or do these figures represent humanity collectively?

Different Christians answer these questions differently. Some propose that God chose two individuals from among early humans to represent humanity in special covenant. Others see Adam and Eve as archetypal figures representing all humanity. Still others maintain that recent scientific work allows for a literal Adam and Eve as ancestors of all humans, though this remains scientifically controversial.

The doctrine of original sin also raises questions. If death existed in the animal kingdom before humans, what does it mean that sin brought death into the world? Most theistic evolutionists understand Paul's teaching about Adam in Romans 5 as theological rather than requiring a literal first human whose sin physically altered creation.

Moving Forward

This conversation reveals something important about both science and faith. Science changes as evidence accumulates. What seems certain today may be refined tomorrow. Faith traditions also develop in their understanding, as believers wrestle with scripture and tradition in new contexts.

Perhaps the question isn't whether evolution and Christianity can coexist—clearly they can and do for millions of believers. The better question is how Christians can thoughtfully integrate scientific understanding with theological conviction without compromising either.

This requires humility on all sides. Scientists should recognize that empirical methods can't address questions of meaning and purpose. Christians should avoid turning Genesis into a science textbook or treating every word as having only one possible interpretation. And everyone should acknowledge that honest, thoughtful people of faith have reached different conclusions on these questions.

The conversation between evolution and Christianity isn't a battle to be won but a dialogue to be continued with both intellectual rigor and mutual respect. Whether you land on theistic evolution, old earth creationism, or somewhere else entirely, the goal should be coherence—a worldview where your understanding of God, scripture, and the natural world fit together in a way that honors truth wherever it's found.

What matters most is that we pursue truth with integrity, treat those who disagree with charity, and remember that both the book of scripture and the book of nature ultimately point to the same Author.