And by the way- what You quoted me stating IS civil- You MUST so manipulate hte word of God in order to beleive macoreovlution andthe bible aren’t in confl;ict- this is a fact- this isn’t a psurious statement.
In order beleive God used evolution- you must beleive God created evil, and that man was simply hte hapless victim of evil, and NOT the perpetrator, and therefore there woudl be no need for a Savior because man was not at fault for sin. God didn’t create evil- He allowed free will, and man brought sin and death upon himself willfully- hence the need for propitiation
The doctrine of theistic evolution undermines the very basic premisses, and key concepts of hte bible, and it must do so in order to justify their beleif- Pointing this out is not being uncivil- it’s beign factual- if someoen stil lwishes to beleive it after beign given the facts, then whatever- but challenging someone’s unbiblical beleifs is not being uncivil
That's your opinion, based on a your personal belief in the a doctrine of literal interpreation and inerrancy. That's a theological disagreement that's been going on for centuries. On what basis do you submit that it should be considered an object of political activism?