"However, their thoughts on this subject are pure speculation. There is no sacred text that reads "out" this notion. It is an idea that can only be read "into" the text."
It's based on a reading of the Bible. Just not the interpretation YOU read into it.
All religious claims are speculative. Just because some are written down in a *sacred* text doesn't make them any more valid. Theology isn't science.
" The bottom line is that theistic evolutionists have no supporting revelation."
Revelation isn't necessary for theism. That being said, all *revelation* in a sacred text is based on faith.
"They needed evolution to fit creation, so they came up with this answer that has "God guiding the evo process.""
Actually, they try to make creation fit the facts of science (not just biological evolution, but geology, physics, cosmology, and a host of other sciences that are in conflict with a literal reading of the Bible).
You don't seem to be getting what I'm saying, so I must not be explaining it clearly. For example, in the book the Lord of the Rings, I could claim that Gandalf carried the Ring of Power.
I would be wrong based on the text. Frodo carried the ring.
Someone, however, could come along and say, "Well, Gandalf really "carried" the whole enterprise, and in that way it could be said that he really carried the ring to its doom."
The first is exegesis: simply reading what's there.
The second is eisegesis: reading into the text.
The Bible includes no notion of "theisic evolution."
It simply isn't there. It has to be "read in" by some other means.
The bottom line is this: the Christian faith is revealed in the pages of the Old and New Testament. There are some things that are not in the pages of those texts,and among them are: (1) the 3 billy goats gruff, (2) the ID, the ego, and the Super-ego; and (3) Theisic evolution.