As you know, my original degree was in geology. Most scientific hoaxes were not discovered by theologians, but rather by other scientists.
While I believe that evolution is not proven (i.e. it is a THEORY) it is also not wise to discount it simply by saying it is unbiblical.
I would not presume to understand the methods that God uses to create life.
And I am not saying by any means that all scientists are charlatans, but I do believe that there has been so much presumption on the part of the public that everything we have been told about scientific 'discoveries' is completely factual, that we have not asked enough questions about its validity.
I'm of the opinion that removing God from the beginnings of life is removing the value of humanity, and by doing so there is no reason to believe that destroying life before birth is a bad thing to do. There was a very definite anti-Christian effort in the 19th century by scientists to destroy people's belief in God......and I believe it worked.
Where I have landed on the evolution issue, is that, from my knowledge of Scripture, there is no reason not to believe in a literal 6 day creation. And I have to ask myself why could it not been done in 6 days, and what evidence is there to believe that it was not? Does the knowledge of the truth of a universal flood explain some of the 'proof' of evolution? I believe very strongly that it does.
I see a potential danger in 'theistic evolution' unless one evaluates science on one's understanding of Scripture (as do you), and not the other way around. I definitely don't claim to have all the answers, and, as a non-scientist, I need to rely on the research of other people either way to have any understanding of it.
And one thing that I don't doubt, Miss Marple, after reading your words for nearly 2 years, is your faith, or your understanding God's truth in His word, and the love of His Son, Jesus Christ.
Here is my attack on their reasoning.
When I ask what are the odds of a cell being created. They say very great. They say it may have taken millions or even billions of years before all conditions existed to create a living cell. But random theory says such conditions did come to exist and these random conditions created living cells. It only takes one chance out of billions of billions of situations for a living cell to evolve is what they say.
I ask them if a a living cell is complex. I ask them if they think a living cell or even a human being is very complex? Why couldn't the conditions have occured in days like my Bible says?
They patiently tell me that cells are very very complex and it would take a huge number of years for the primordial soup to appear. My simplistic days is just not realistic. Cells are very complex. The bible is simplistic.
I then say that a living cell can't be all that complex. I ask them "If they think a living cell is more complex than... than " <\b> here I look around and finally look in my pocket and take out my Bic pen and say "this Bic ball point pen?"
They look at me like I am an idiot and say a living cell is way more complex than my stupid BIC pen.
And I say, "Do You believe that random combination of the elements produced a living cell?" They always reply ... "Certainly."
I then ask why in all of these billions of years why a simple thing like a bic pen has not evolved in nature. Evolution can randomly make a human being but not a ball point pen? Why is it not reasonable to expect in all these billions of years the chemical elements to make a bic pen have not come togther in the right amounts and place to produce more of them than the BIC people have. My God, I say, the Bic company produces thousands of these little pens a day. How much random would it take for one to evolve? Bic can make pens but not humans. And you want be to believe that random combinations can evolve living cells but not evolve a single BIC ball point pen?
It tell them that when evolution can evolve a GE Refrigerator I will believe it can create a man.