[xzins]

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.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" The Bible includes no notion of "theisic evolution."

It simply isn't there. It has to be "read in" by some other means."

It's *read in* by reading the Word written into the physical creation.

It can be equally said that those who rely on the Word of a book over the Word of the physical creation are *making it up*. When there is a conflict between the two, a choice has to be made. At least the reading of the Word of the physical creation is testable.

This is all besides the point anyway. Theism does not require a *sacred text*. The claim was made that evolution is atheistic, and this simply is not so. Even if evolution really is incompatible with Christianity that fact would not make evolution atheistic.