"Theistic Evolution" is the notion that God utilized evolution to create life on this planet. I'm speaking in general terms, as there are lots of forms of theistic evolution. I've met a fair amount of folks who believe this is a viable theory for them. It's usually though, because they have an obfuscated or low view of God. I don't mean that to be insulting.

In this scenario, life is supposed to have found it's semi-random, (remember God is supposed to have come up with this idea) origin in non-living chemicals. An atheistic evolutionist says the same thing. Both believe that life evolved by mutation from a single-celled organism, through natural selection. The major difference in the way the two worldviews shape up is that while atheistic evolutionists don't believe God exists, theistic evolutionists believe that God created the materials for the process and guided the whole thing along. A loving tweak here, a goad there. But does that work?

A really close Christian friend of mine told me that he could, "now see how evolution explains some of the scientific questions that I have." This is an intelligent man. In fact he is brilliant, but very humble. I could tell you some of the things he has invented or has shared in inventing. Many of us use these things or are affected by them on a daily basis.

The appeal that theistic evolution has for many Christians is enormous. You can be a servant of God and still disbelieve those portions of the Bible that don't fit your rationale. You just write them off as allegory. You get to believe in God and avoid having people call you a fundamentalist Christian or a Jesus freak.

You could be a Christian theistic evolutionist who thinks that God had a very present hand in His creation, or a non-Christian theistic evolutionist who feels that there is a God, but that he or she was no more than a far-distant first cause for the whole process. You could probably swap God's role around any which way in those groups and find another group who believes that way too. Most all of the folks in any of these groups are going to be very liberal in their theology.

You might even run into someone who has a very orthodox Christian view of the Bible who uses evolution to answer some of their questions. I have a family member who sort of leans that way. You could even find progressive creationists (old earth) who believe that God directly created all major organisms, but instead of doing it in six days as the Bible says, he did it over extremely long periods of time. You also have people like me who are regarded by many as "nut cases" who believe the creation story in the Bible is accurate and that the world was created in six literal days and that the Earth is only around ten-thousand years old. I could go on and on.

The problem is, in order accept evolution you have to reject some pretty important Christian beliefs. For one thing, the Genesis account in the Bible could not be regarded as a book which conveys a true picture of what went on. It would be laden with errors. If it's riddled with errors, it can't be regarded as a true revelation from God.

In 1st Corinthians, Paul states; "16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!" 1 Cor 15:16-18

What a horrible thought that is. But a theistic evolutionist worldview is presented with a problem in a similar vein. Sin had no place in God's perfect creation. The Bible clearly tells us that sin entered the world through one man (see Romans 5:12), through individual choice when Adam sinned, and God will one day eradicate sin from the world again. That's one of our great hopes, and it doesn't work in evolution.

Theistic evolution or evolution in general both assume that evil and suffering and death are an elemental part of the world we live in. If you are a theistic evolutionist, that means that you are putting yourself in the position of believing that God is the one responsible for creating evil. Doesn't that mean that He's an evil God? This dilemma requires some more mental and biblical gymnastics.

This is accomplished by lessening the reality of sin, by making evil less than what it is, and also the consequences that follow it. If there wasn't a fall, then we don't need redemption. If sin arises because it's a characteristic trait from our animal ancestry, we can take it easy. It isn't our fault, and things are only improving because we're constantly evolving into something better and better.
What about Jesus? This is the man of whom even those who disbelieve His godhood say, "He was a very wise man," or "He was a brilliant teacher." If even the disbelieving would follow just the second great commandment and love their neighbor as themselves, the change on this planet would be nearly as Utopian as could be possible in an unbelieving world.

Jesus spoke of Noah in Matthew 24 and Luke 17:26 and it's obvious that He taught that the Genesis account actually occurred. That's enough for me. The writer of Hebrews in Chapter 11 spoke of Noah's faith, and the Apostle Peter in both of his epistles recounted the days of Noah and the Ark and spoke of both Noah and his experience and salvation with that of his family as historical fact.

That is pretty hard to argue with. If you claim to be a Christian, the way Jesus looks at Genesis is pretty obvious. He didn't consider it to be allegory. That means that theistic evolution not only discounts great parts of the Old Testament, but the New Testament as well, even casting aside the words of Jesus as well. One cannot discount the word of the living God and say that one believes in Him. He doesn't allow that.

Proverbs 30:5-6
5Every word of God is pure;He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. 6 Do not add to His words,Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

Luke 4:4
But Jesus answered him, saying, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.'