Unfortunately I think that entertainment masquerading as science has been a catalyst for much of this misunderstanding regarding evolution. I am a Christian, and I believe evolution occurs. The evidence is undeniable. I do not know to what degree.
(11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.)
Let the land produce? Something to think about.
and again,
(And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.)
Interestingly enough, it does not word it this way for life in the oceans. Here, it suggest direct creation. Which is in line with the Theory of Evolution.
I do part with ToE on the evolution of man. But, I have no scientific evidence to back it up, so I won't argue it on this forum.
"I do part with ToE on the evolution of man. But, I have no scientific evidence to back it up, so I won't argue it on this forum."
This is a serious question and I'm not looking to score points, just understand. Do you feel this way because it interferes with the "special" relationship between man and God?
there is an alternative way of looking at things, which sidesteps the whole apparent conflict.
I don't vouch for it, mind you, but it works.
Think of a novel, one of good quality in its craft.
You will note that there are the events in the text, the narrative, the plot on the page. You will note also that the environment, characters, and overall plot are the creations of the author.
These are obvious.
But there is also a BACK HISTORY which never actually precedes page one paragraph one word one, yet upon which the events of the plot to a great extent depend, from which the characters were forged, and through which their world came to be... FOR THEM, the "residents" in the book.
In *really good* novels, the authors frequently spend an immense amount of effort in creating and detailing this back history, even though none of it makes it directly into the intended work, because this back history is *absolutely necessary* for the functioning of the intended work itself.
This back history is non-factual to the author, is non-factual in terms of the book's real genesis, but is very factual for the "lesser" or "internal" reality of the book itself.
Now, replace all iterations in the above of "back history" with "cosmological, geological, fossil, and DNA records"; of "book, lesser internal reality" with "the observable material universe"... and "author" with "God"
As I said, I don't endorse this way of looking at things, but it does seem to resolve the apparent conflict.