Theology and Steak has a great post refuting theistic evolution, the belief that God used evolution to create the universe and life on earth. Summed up simply, it's a way of accepting the whole of mainstream science, and throwing God in without actually attributing anything specific (or heaven forbid, supernatural) to Him. The author of the post points out that among the Presbyterian Church USA, 60 to 90 percent of members and clergy believe "evolutionary theory is compatible with the idea of God as Creator." He also gives excerpts of a statement signed by some 11,000 churches indicating the stories of the Bible need not be taken literally.

Last year I had someone ask me to make a place in my blogroll for "evolutionary creationists" if I remember the term correctly. His position was apparently similar to theistic evolution (TE), but he preferred the emphasis on "creation". I didn't find the distinction important enough to warrant a change of terms. Incidentally, I don't have a place in my blogroll yet for theistic evolutionists, though perhaps some of them would categorize themselves with old earth creationists or ID theorists. (Some TE advocates are firmly opposed to the ID movement, however.) Like theistic evolutionists, ID theorists discredit the randomness of Darwinism, but unfortunately don't discredit evolution, but instead believe the process of evolution reflects design. God guided the process, but what he did no one really knows. As much as I admire ID theorists, I'm disappointed they stop short of their potential.

Last week while criticizing Darwinists who try to force people to choose between science and religion, Casey Luskin at the Discovery Institute blog accused creationists of promoting "a false dichotomy that forces supporters of evolution to abandon religion." Luskin sounds just like one of the churchgoers mentioned above who believe evolution and the biblical record are completely compatible. What he and so many others apparently haven't given two minutes of thought to is that the Bible teaches that the physical death of humans was a result of sin--not a precursor to it. Why was Jesus' death effective on our behalf? Because, being sinless, he didn't deserve to die in the first place. Not so if death is merely an artifact of evolution.

Luskin is wrong--the dichotomy isn't false. Creationists don't ask evolutionists to abandon religion, but we do challenge them to be theologically consistent. Otherwise the doctrines our faith rests on will turn as wishy-washy as the times.