"the CHRISTIAN veiw of this 'creator' is quite different than the one Evolution allows one to believe in."
I'll grant you that the atheistic version of evolution is different from the Biblical version of creation, but to suggest that there are no Christians who believe in evolution is, I think, incorrect.
There is a recently published book, "The Language of God." It's on the NYT best seller list. I don't agree with everything the author says, but he illustrates, I think, that you don't have to believe in the "traditional" interpretation of Genesis in order to be a Christian. And frankly, I don't know any Christian denomination that claims that you've got to ascribe to a particular interpretation of Genesis in order to be saved. There are some that will make you feel uncomfortable if you don't, but that's not quite the same thing.
I read an article not too long ago that claimed that the majority of doctors believe in God. Most doctors would probably also confide that they believe in evolution, I think.
It's a mistake to insist that any aspect of science that does not completely parallel the traditional interpretations of the various parts of the Bible must be wrong. Throughout history, the Church has lost that battle over and over. The world is not flat. The sun does not orbit the earth...
Why would we insist on fighting an unnecessary war, using the excuse that if one scientific claim is true, then the Bible is a lie? Particularly when there's a good chance that we will lose it in the end, and the logic does not follow anyway?
Your post is much appreciated. Thank you.
I hope I didn't suggest this!
I feel that you can either believe in E or not, and STILL be a Christian.
I merely state that you have to DISBELIEVE (or explain it away)parts of the Book if you accept E.
Once THIS occurs, then ther places in the Book are subject to the same treatment.