Interesting & thoughtful review.

Evolution is itself aptly named- its own definition is constantly evolving. I question how anyone can really contrast it to a sound theology when it is itself such a moving target. And it must remain a moving target since the more we learn the more it becomes apparent the presuppositions it is based upon are a collective house built upon quicksand. It must be redefined in order to not become obsolete enough to be discarded. And we all hopefully realize what a difficulty that would provide those who are working so diligently to avoid having to be accountable to a Creator! You simply cannot arrive at the conclusion of evolution (in any form) without a presupposition driving you there.

Sean said: "After reading these works one thing become clear: theology can be molded and adapted to accommodate evolutionary theory, but not vice versa. " There is actually a difference between "can be" and "is being". These are so mutually exclusive that they cannot be molded into each other whatsoever without some serious rule bending. Any attempt to do so requires a ridiculous amount of selective ignoring of evidences. The more you know either the more you will realize that one must be very superficial to be able to pull off any semblance of connection. And there remains absolutely no viable reason to want to try to make these connect. No legitimate one in my opinion anyway. Sean is correct that it would weaken either to attempt to do so.

My own journey took me from being an idealistic young science major at a local college who embraced evolution until witnessing a couple professors trip over their own words. In one case a prof contradicted himself when discussing embryology's relationship to evolution. He grew quite angry upon hearing my sincere questions. That was strike one. Strike two came when another prof was espousing uniformitarian geology. When asked when & how the deposition of alluvium happened he could only mutter something about localized flooding. The evidence for erosion was ample, but I wanted to know how deposition occurred! The evidence pointed clearly toward some sort of catastrophism but this professor likewise could only respond in anger. These were innocent & genuine questions! Questions planted in my mind by the Lord I had just found. I had not yet heard of creationism. I had no agenda other than genuine open curiosity. There was no need for a strike three- there obviously had to be a more consistent model somewhere. This was rapidly becoming apparent to me. I then transferred to what was at the time the arguably the leading creationist hotspot in the country. There I learned even more about evolution than I had before, perhaps more than my profs had even been aware of- as well as the Creation model. I saw how rapidly the front lines of evolution were changing in response to new facts coming to light. Facts which contradicted the old theories. Lower academia was to a large extent 'safe' since they were well isolated from the cutting edge's turmoil. So students keep being taught the same old tired version from a decade (or two or three) prior. All the while the cutting edge folks took pains to distance themselves from the ideas they had just recently championed in order to avoid embarrassment. Nice job, guys- keep spreading the old disproven ideas real thick with great confidence and people will believe. Keep sacred evolution alive at all costs- why bother let the Truth get in the way? Who would possibly dare question, these are scientists after all! Well, some did. And they were subject to name calling & personal attacks. The media (the ignorant media) took these men to task for daring to think clearly! But very little real science was presented in opposition. Oh there was (and continues to be) some attempts, though I've yet to see much that isn't taken by a measure of faith in science at least as large as the measure of faith required to believe in a Creator God. So pick your god- God or self! Which will it be?

Theistic evolution exists only because some have not yet bothered making a sufficiently close examination of the facts. It always was an unnecessary compromise born in an age when "science" was revered and unquestioned but before men like Henry Morris and those like him dared stand up and shined the light upon both the untested assumptions behind this most unscientific science and also upon the Scriptures. I do not condemn those who were mislead into such a belief as T.E., but those who remain clinging to it are clinging unto a badly decomposing notion without realizing it. One that serves only to undermine the foundation of their faith. By the way, how can science keep going on & on calling the atheistic origin model science when it cannot in any way be tested by scientific theory? Evolution is no more verifiable than any other fairly tale! Yes, creation requires a measure of faith as well, doesn't it? But unlike evolution, the more light you shine upon it the better it looks!

Evolution... In my lifetime it has become pervasive as a scientific "certainty" as well as a descriptor of all processes of development, from cars to workflow to the way we think and come to know. All is evolving. The term is nausiatingly mis-applied and has become commonplace jargon to our Western culture.

I practice applied science for my living and have since 1976. I can say that I have never embraced the concept of evolution of species. I see it as antithetical to man as a living soul, made in God's likeness for the express purpose of being in relationship with Him. Would or could evolution give you that?

I expect to go to my grave without conceding to evolution and I'll say that I believe my brief life here on Earth will have been none the poorer for having discarded it as just more of man's flaunted self-conceit in showing how we've got things figured out.

Should Christian's embrace evolution? Why? Doing so does not improve our apologetic but is actually an exercise is self-denial.