[CarolinaGuitarman]

"It didn't get into describing that God that you envision being possible under an evolutionary scheme. "

Because there are so many possibilities. One being Christ, which is what most people who accept evolution in the USA take on faith as their Savior.

"Why should I not assume that is because "theism" and "evolution" are incompatible?"

Because you would be wrong? The existence of millions of theists who accept evolution is a pretty good refutation.

"After all, my own analysis (and Carl Sagan's) indicates that it they are not possible finally to reconcile."

Do you look to Carl Sagan for your theological arguments? I'm surprised. :)

[xzins]

The existence of millions of theists who accept evolution is a pretty good refutation.

Likewise, you know that truth by polling doesn't necessarily provide good results. (If everyone else was jumping off the cliff.....(my mom used to say))

As an ordained Christian clergyman, one could call my opinion on the subject of Christ, "professional." I don't think one can relegate the creation narratives to "myth" status and come up with a solid explanation for any need for Christ.

Carl Sagan and I tend to agree on what evolution means to religious systems -- it relegates them to mythological status. Actually, the title of this article leading this thread is in agreement: "Designed to Deceive: Creation can't hold up to the rigors of science."