How does an evolutionist deal with the theological issues with evolution?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Art is not a branch of medicine.

This is very true. And evolution is not science. And the Creation and origin of life is not a subject that can be studied by science. This seems to be a stumbling block for a lot of people.

Perhaps some of the people who think that Evolution is compatible with the Bible can explain the Resurrection scientifically. Or any other supernatural Biblical events.

Why believe in the Resurrection unless you can explain how it was done?

If you are asking that seriously, I can only say I would probably not bother with Christianity if I could explain it. The Resurrection is strictly supernatural - there are no analogies for it; which is why it is a waste of time to try to prove it. Either one believes in it - or one does not. If God were so small that one could deal with supernatural acts of God as though they were items in a newspaper, He would be nothing more than some miserable idol. God is to be believed - not tested.​

The real argument is not that God could chose to use a mechanism like Evolution to bring about the human race. Certainly He could have, had He chosen to do so. The problem is that the Bible is quite specific that He did not use Evolution, or anything like it.

The Bible does not go into the matter: it was not written for folk with Ph.Ds in biology - it was written for ordinary people. If it had used scientific terminology - which it could not, given its date & cultural context - it would have all but unreadable, because not everyone has a talent for the sciences.​

The Bible does not pronounce on evolution either way - it has far more important things to discuss. It’s an illusion of perspective to think that because we bother with evolution, it must also be of interest to the author of that part of the Bible. There is no reason why it should be. If it had been, that would have made Genesis an anachronistic monstrosity.

Why would the Bible clearly state that each kind reproduced its own kind? Wouldn’t that be obvious? It’s only in the last hundred and fifty years that some people believe one animal could produce another! Is this not a direct rejection of the Evolutionary theory?

The Bible says that death came after sin. This must be an error in the Bible, since we know now that creatures were dying for millions of years.

I think that has been answered already, several times​

The Bible says that the first man named all of the animals. How could he have named the dinoaurs if they died out 65 million years ago? I guess the writers who were inspired by God got confused on that one too.

Genesis 2 is a story - not a documentary. What is far more important than whether there was an individual first man named Adam, is the theology of the account. Sometimes, a story is the best way of saying what one has to say (as C. S. Lewis said): which is probably why the Bible has so many stories in it. Men, animals, trees, are familiar in all sorts of cultures - but the same can hardly be said of nematodes or trilobites; the Bible would fail in its purpose if only scientists could understand it.​

I think that you either have to reject the Bible, or you have to reject Evolutionism. They are not compatible.