[gore3000]

If evolution "turned out to be true," then it must have been because it was God's choice of method, not man's.

I think that while it may be true that God could have chosen to have species evolve, it still would not be evolution. If God had chosen to have species change and turn themselves into something else, a sort of 'unfolding', then it would have been by design, not by chance. It is the chanciness and randomness as well as the claim by evolution that it is the environment that changes species that is anti-Christian.

[betty boop]

Great points, gore3000! It really does seem unlikely that God would make something just so it could change into something else. Seems like kind of a strange way of getting things done.

[exmarine]

I think that while it may be true that God could have chosen to have species evolve, it still would not be evolution. If God had chosen to have species change and turn themselves into something else, a sort of 'unfolding', then it would have been by design, not by chance. It is the chanciness and randomness as well as the claim by evolution that it is the environment that changes species that is anti-Christian.

I would agree with you. I would add that a God who used mutation (directed mutation?) + natural selection would be employing a very inefficient and cruel means for creating. In view of the character and awesome power of the God of the bible, this makes no sense. Further, it would require death and dying before the fall, and would require that Adam & Eve are mere allegories, therefore making sin an allegory thereby erasing the need for a Savior. Without special creation, Genesis falls. If Genesis falls, Christianity falls.