Primary to the issue of evolutionary creationism, and of grave importance, are the theological ramifications of the tenant that go to affect the entire worldview of the individual.

If the Genesis Creation account is allegorical rather than historical, the evolutionary crationist has a conundrum or two to account for that I cannot see being reconciled so as to form a logical and well-grounded faith in the Gospel.

Mind you, I am not saying that you do not affirm the Lordship of Christ and the sacrifice He has made, or that you are not one of the sheep of the Flock. Rather, I am saying that if you do hold this position while holding to the immediately aforementioned, your groundwork for faith is illogical. I recognize that one is not brought to faith by logic, but I do think that mature faith is itself logical. It is for this reason I think I can firmly state your position is theologically illogical and inconsistent, but say so to one I do take as a brother, despite the shortcomming.

Problem 1: In denying the historicity of Genesis, the evolutionary creationist denies the historicity of Adam as the Federal Head. Being that Adam did not exist as is portrayed in Genesis, he cannot then exist as the Federal Head of all mankind, to be a representative for us. With this taken as true from your position, Christ's work on the cross is meaningless as we are just a bunch of hairless apes who are not really "totally depraved" because sin did not enter the world through Adam.

This is contradictory to the reasoning we see in Scripture which plainly asserts that through one man, i.e. Adam, sin has entered the world. In denying the historicity of Genesis, you deny what Scripture purports about the vehicle through which sin entered the world, as well as any explaination for the total depravity of man.

Problem 2: As was mentioned above, Scripturally, death did not occur before the Fall, it was a result of the curse. This has no place in an allegory and I fail to see how apes evolved into humans via natural selection sans mortality so that they could disobey God, and introduce death into the world, which was already prexisting somehow. I cannot see this as reconciled.

Problem 3: At what point did man gain a soul? Animals are without an ethereal nature and Angels and demons are solely ethereal. Man is the only hybrid, so to speak. At one point in the evolutionary framework did man cease being a souless animal and gain an immortal, ethereal soul? I see no place for this in Scripture, at all, which means you'll need to appeal to an extra-Scriptural basis in order to account for this, which is plainly outside the bounds of orthodox Protestantism.

Edit: Problem 4: I read Rev. Winzer's post and it also reminded me that we also have no basis for the Sabbath. The Decalogue tell us to "remember the Sabbath" because it had already been in effect since creation. If the historical 7 days are denied, then what exactly are we to be remembering?

Sidenote: I don't think anyone here would seek to purport that scientific findings should be dismissed because they are, well, scientific. I would urge you to remember that science was ruled by God fearing Christians for hundreds of years before the usurpation of the discipline by naturalistic, materialistic, atheists. It is with these presuppositions, i.e. that all that occurs is a result of only physical, natural processes and that the supernatural and immaterial are fantasies, that evolutionists have designed a theory to account for our origins that is without sufficient merit to be regarded as it is, i.e. as a presumed law. Irreducible complexity, the genesis of DNA without proteins, and information ex nihilo sans an author all present steep problems for the evolutionary explaination, but they are ignored in an unabashed defiance of logic and scholarship, to the deteriment of us all.

It is not science that is a problem. Science is the discipline by which we explore and discover God's general revelation to us. Rather, it is the presuppositional stance that is required to enter and exist in the field of science that is the problem. It requires that you abandon all tenants of science in a specific area, i.e. evolution, in a foolish bid to maintain a false worldview so that men can continue denying God.

I hope you'll take these inconsistencies to heart and reform your notions about man's origins.

Humbly, your brother.

__________________
Andrew DeShazo, Deacon, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN
"All of us stumble in many ways, but if anyone is never at fault in what he says, then he is mature, able to control his whole body."(James 3:2)