Okay, so in your view, animal death is not intristically evil. Therefore there is no conflict between the existience of animal death and creation being "very good"
Therefore, when reconstructing history, we do not know all of the possibilities or even what to make of them, so we must make a choice whether or not we trust the sources.
Evolution is not based on "sources." It's based on physical evidence. And yes, given that God created the physical world, I can trust physical evidence.
Ignoring physical evidence and accepting a literalist interpretation is what led many Christians to accept geocentrism, contrary to what you posted earlier. It is true, Greek and medieval (not modern) astronomers also were geocentrists. But when new evidence was uncovered establishing heliocentrism beyond any reasonable doubt, it was only the religious who resisted the change. And they based their obejctions solely on scripture.
Here's a good article on The Galileo Affair.
Can you name anyone before 1700 that believed the way you do?
Absolutley. As the article points out, before 1300, the universal view was that God did NOT directly create the "kinds" but rather His creation was mediated through nature.
The article mentions St. Athanasius, who believed that physical death existed prior to the Fall, which brought on spiritual death. St Gregory of Nyssa believed that man passed through lower states before becoming fully human.
And of course, St. Augustine has a figurative interpretation of Genesis and accepts an of evolution of sorts.
Regarding "Kinds", I don't see evolution contradicts the Biblical concept. God created kinds through evolution. What's the problem?
Where does the Bible say that one "Kind" cannot split into two or more "Kinds" over time?
Regarding a global flood, it could only have been local. That is a scientific fact that is true independent of evolution. The standard AiG scriptural objections to a local delluge are pretty well answered here
I think you are thinking of animals, not plants. Anyway, this is because the language in chapter 2 does not necessarily indicate sequence, and in fact many translations leave out the sequence implications because they are not necessarily indicated by the Hebrew.
I see, so you interpret Genesis 1 literally but not Genesis 2 literally. That really makes a lot of sense.
"Okay, so in your view, animal death is not intristically evil. Therefore there is no conflict between the existience of animal death and creation being "very good""
You are implying that not being very good means evil. There is no reason to think that. We get cancer. It's not evil, but it's not "very good" either. Likewise, when creation was very good, animals and man were commanded to eat a vegetarian diet. After it had degenerated, man was given everything to eat. Why would you postulate that man was not allowed to eat meat until after the flood?
"Evolution is not based on "sources." It's based on physical evidence. And yes, given that God created the physical world, I can trust physical evidence."
But can you trust your interpretation of that evidence? Bones don't come with dates listed. That has to be interpretted by circumstancial evidence. I should hope our court system would not put the same value on circumstantial evidence that you seem to. There is a reason why circumstantial evidence is of a secondary quality -- it requires interpretation, which can be faulty and is based on our preconceptions of what is possible or likely.
Sources is based on eyewitnesses. When given the choice between circumstantial evidence and the testimony of eyewitnesses, I usually go with the eyewitnesses.
"But when new evidence was uncovered establishing heliocentrism beyond any reasonable doubt, it was only the religious who resisted the change."
That is simply incorrect, especially as the evidence establishing heliocentrism beyond any reasonable doubt did not occur until Newton.
From your link:
"It is, moreover, undeniable, that the proofs which Galileo adduced in support of the heliocentric system of Copernicus, as against the geocentric of Ptolemy and the ancients, were far from conclusive"
He did not prove it, as there was still considerable evidence against it.
"Absolutley. As the article points out, before 1300, the universal view was that God did NOT directly create the "kinds" but rather His creation was mediated through nature."
Mediation does not imply evolution. As I pointed out, there have always been evolutive theories, and that the one in Genesis is decidedly not of this nature.
"And of course, St. Augustine has a figurative interpretation of Genesis and accepts an of evolution of sorts."
Actually, Augustine believes quite firmly that the Genesis account is factual, though some words may have different meanings than normal. This would still preclude evolution as (a) the order of things is wrong, and (b) the distinct kinds are fairly explicit. Also, most of the people who attest to Augustine's "figurative interpretation" are greatly exaggerating the extent to which Augustine is allowing figurative language. Many of his quotes supporting this are taken out of their context in which he establishes the extent to which he thinks that their figurativeness can be believed.
"Regarding "Kinds", I don't see evolution contradicts the Biblical concept. God created kinds through evolution. What's the problem?"
Several problems:
1) if kinds are just species, then Adam would have had trouble naming them after millions of years of diversification. If they diversified afterwards, there would have been no problem.
2) if the kinds are just species, then Noah would have had trouble fitting them on the ark.
"Where does the Bible say that one "Kind" cannot split into two or more "Kinds" over time?"
If you are specifically talking about diversification -- all creationists believe in diversification. The difference is the additive component that makes something an individual creation -- information. Science has not given us any mechanism for adding information to cells. Yet that information is there.
Think of it this way: when we modify bacteria to make insulin-producing bacteria, what are we doing? We are taking existing bacteria, adding in information, and getting out a new organism. Is what we are doing mediated by nature? Yes. Is what we are doing evolution? No.
"Regarding a global flood, it could only have been local."
That link is humorous. For it's reason why birds were on the ark is that they don't fly well in the rain. Well guess what -- they didn't have to fly in the rain! God brought them to moses WEEKS before the flood. This is plenty of time even for poor flyers to have made it out.
Likewise, if you look at the carrying capacity of the ark, you can see that this is for much more than just one regions animals, especially if there are only two of most kinds.
Likewise, the flood lasted a whole year, and, as mentioned in the text, the flood was 8 meters about the mountains (or hills as your link wants to call them). If it were a local flood, would it really take Noah a whole year to find dry land? Would it really take a whole year for any amount of water to dissipate if it were only covering hills?
"I see, so you interpret Genesis 1 literally but not Genesis 2 literally. That really makes a lot of sense."
I do take it literally. That is part of the language. It's not something I'm making up -- it's actually a part of Hebrew. vav-consecutives can indicate consecutive action, but don't necessarily do so. If I say, "yesterday I ate lunch, and I also ate breakfast", am I indicating a definite sequence? Or am I organizing them by importance instead? Understanding the language as a whole, and not individual piecemeal statements, is _required_ for a literal reading of _anything_.