No evidence for evolution at all. Adaptation? Yep, lots of it. Evolution? Not so much.
The Bible has everything we need to know for us to know God and live. Granted it is not a science book, nor is it intended to be. But Genesis says the Lord created all the animals to reproduce according to their kind. The Lord did NOT make a living cell, telling it to evolve and change and fill the planet with life. Nor did He tell the Lemur that it was the chosen precursor for a being that will have a soul.
I believe, in and on faith, what the Bible says, there is NO part of it that is false. Notice I did not say that it explains everything. That understanding comes later. But in the meantime, it is true and sufficient.
As an “evolutionist” myself I must say you wrote a good post here. All of it so I’m not going to post a quote of it.
I will say though that I agree when you say “God said animals are to reproduce after their own kind”. I’d also like to point out though that that statement doesn’t necessarily preclude a theory of evolution.
Evolution doesn’t say animals don’t reproduce after their own kind. Also consider the fact that since we both agree the Bible isn’t meant to be a science textbook, then there certainly is a wide area of potential discoveries to be made about the workings of the physical world. There’s nothing inherently sinful about the scientific method that is.
So truly, what is the harm in at least attempting to describe *how* God created all the life forms we see today? Simply because in doing so, we come to conclusions that contradict a literalist interpretation of Scripture? We don’t say it’s sinful to describe *how* table salt is made in nature (by combining sodium and chloride atoms) or describing *how* earthquakes do what they do, or *how* hurricanes form.
A description of *how* animal and plant life came to be the way it is now contradicting a literal interpretation of Genesis can only mean one of two things: 1. That the theory (of evolution) is blasphemy or 2. That perhaps a literal interpretation of Genesis is not called for/was never intended by the inspired author.
I simply go for 2. After all, there are plenty of places in Scripture where only the insane would say a literal interpretation is required. So there’s no necessary reason it must be required in Genesis. It certainly doesn’t make Genesis any less true OR hisorically accurate to reject a literal interpretation.