Ok, I'm going to preface this comment with a warning because I work two jobs and must leave shortly for 14 hours - the warning is I won't be responding for another 14 hours. Just a heads up.
Forgetting 737 for the moment, you're admitting now that you wanted to beg similar circumstance in reliance on philosophy as a lowest common denominator for excusing your position based on what you thought I might be doing. That is the gist of your position as I understand it, is it not.
In response to that, I would point out that what I personally do one way or the other has zero bearing on what the truth of scripture is. I can defend it for being true; but, if I cuss you out, that isn't a reflection on scripture, it's a reflection on me. So whether I invoke philosophy or not doesn't help your argument. Whether anyone else does or not doesnt' help your argument. Your argument has to stand on it's own against the facts. And if you aren't taking that approach, you show the weakness of your hand by appealing to the lowest common denominator.. 'Buddy does it so I should be able to steal too' doesn't work as a kid in a candy store and it doesn't pass muster as an adult before a judge either. How then does it pass muster before an all knowing God?
My view on anything that even smacks of being unscriptural is to take the case to God - literally. Sit down, read what scripture has to say. Once you've examined that carefully, sit in a chair as though you were sitting before God and explain it to Him. It may seem absurd; but, act like it's the difference between going to heaven or going to hell and try to imagine what an unbiased And just judge would tell you. It requires being objective. And it requires a healthier respect for the scriptures as God's word instead of the usual approach many people take that it's God's suggestion when taken in small doses with tradition and the opinions of men via philosophy etc. That is to say, I've debated Catholics for years now and I'm well acquainted with the usual explanations and gimmes.
Evolution and Christian scripture are irreconcilable. And if you're going to start calling God a liar, what makes Genesis 1 any different from the Gospels. What about Jesus arising from the dead? It is no more scientifically plausible than God speaking everything into existance because it can't be explained "naturally". When you start picking and choosing things to believe, you end up with not much left ultimately save for the reverse of where you started. Your compromise is your comfort zone and your bottom line is what you want whether true or proper. When that becomes the bottom line, anything goes. And that is the point. Philosophy can rationalize anything amd most of the time does just that. Philosophers can pull the wool a lot of times because the art is in persuasion using whatever means sound good. If they had to convince God to his face of most of the garbage they spew, most would have the good sense to shut up knowing better before him. They don't realize he's right there all the time even if they can't see him. And he misses nothing.
You are talking strict evolution. They are not irreconciable. What would make it irreconciable is a denial of God. Evolution exists just as plain as day exists. But to what degree and so on is the question. A denial of God would be to say life was created out of nothing by no one, ID and the Catholics view of the situation are pretty damn similar.
They both acknowledge that a form of evolution exists by saying yeah animals and humans do adapt to there situation, less hair, growing taller, shorter, etc. Those are examples of evolution, what ID and Catholicism says is that they wouldnt be possible without the Intelligence of GOD or to other Religions a intelligence.
You see I believe my God to be so intelligent as to have created within every litle thing on earth the ability to evolve overr time to adapt and overcome or need be perish. Do you see? In other words Gods abilities are so great and so incredible is that not only did he create the Earth and everything on it, he even created evolution as we are arguing now.
Otherwise, I believe if you dont see the obvious examples of evolution, you deny a part of Gods creation.
No far from denying God, I am giving him his due where strict big E evolutionists do not.