This paper will almost certainly grieve the pied-pipers of “Christian” materialism.
Thanks, I haven't had the time to read the paper yet but, from the title, I would likely support part or maybe all of it.
Evolution is a fact. But before you get rankled, please realize that I believe it has its limits. We see evolution in work all of the time -- the constantly mutating flu virus is a good example.
My problems with evolution are scientific, not religious. If you've ever read Michael Behe, you've probably heard of the example of the very complex chemistry behind eyesight. While what I call hyper-evolutionists will rightly point out that the chemistry of vision contains loops, we're still stuck with the fact of explaining how the basic chemistry got there in the first place.
We don't have a lot of unnecessary chemicals floating around in our bodies just looking for a job to do. I'm not aware of any, as a matter of fact. It wasn't until all that long ago that nitric oxide was thought to have no use. And throwing time at it doesn't make the situation any better. As a creationist, I think that the evidence points to a designer, who is the God of the Bible.
However, if we were shown absolute, 100%-undeniable proof that all life evolved from a single-cell (or cells) in the primordial soup, it wouldn't shatter my faith in God one bit. I would just say that God chose to use the laws of evolution to create life. I believe that he does already, just not to the extent to which "hyper-evolutionists" believe.
I think that the complex chemistry of life is one reason why it has been my experience that so many chemists and physicians are Christians.
I have seen far too many miracles in my life to reject God. In fact, I was the beneficiary of an immediate miracle while being prayed for last week. I have seen so many lives changed by God, including my own. I love science, but I see the study of science as the study of God.
As I said before, Genesis tells us nothing about how God created life and the universe. It gives a brief and vague chronological order, but that's about it. I do not see any conflicts between general revelation (science, for one) and the special revelation of God's word. I also pointed out the necessity of word studies in interpreting portions of the Bible. I've already told you about yom and olam, check out the meanings of the word behema and see how it can apply to the flood story.