I think perhaps we're more in agreement than either of us
thought. Heisenberg's Principle of Indeterminacy is
close to the existential view that ultimately "logic"
and "reason" have ineluctable limits. Did you read his
book, "Physics and Philosophy" ? I agree that the view of
evolution as being something "red in tooth and claw" is
inimical to Christian moral values. But I think perhaps
in its evolution humanity at some point took a quantum
leap and changed qualitatively. Have you read anything by
that Jesuit paleontologist, Teilhard de Chardin? Perhaps
we are headed towards some evolutinary Omega Point. Then
there is the fact that in the section of the brain called
the "reptilian cortex" we still are "red in tooth and
claw" as we sleep into the deeper unconsciousness. And
when we awake and see the horrors we've created we're
tempted to believe in an atavistic DEvolution. Perhaps
Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were right -- all truth is
subjective -- even that Objective Truth that we subjectively call transcendant and universally valid.
At this point I'm beginning to feel like St. Paul when
he was told by the Athenians that "learning has made you
mad." Would like to hear your views. All best,
de Chardin wrote that evolution is the principle to which all other [truth/theory/knowledge; I forget] must bow. That was, in essence, his starting point, his archai. If we bend and twist Scripture, accepted on faith, to comport with something else (evolution in this case), that means we A) allegorize historical books, and B) by implication falsify a portion of Scripture. Once we do that, all Scripture becomes suspect, subject to our smorgasbord desires to pick and choose the "non-threatening" parts we like (God is love, love your neighbors), and reject those parts that fall outside the ken of our understanding (Creation, the Flood, the long day, etc.). As soon as we project corruption on a part, the whole becomes suspect.
Since evolution and creation are two views accepted on faith, which one comports with the facts? Those embracing evolution as cause for our origins have done an excellent job of reconciling the facts to fit their framework. This does not prove evolution however.
I rather suspect the real reason behind the desire to accept and prove evolution is the age old battle between the Seed of the Woman and the Seed of the Serpent: Those who will cry in the last day to the mountains, "Fall on us!" would wish to salve their fears of the inevitability of their own date of accountability by convincing themselves there is no God, no judgement, no consequences for unbridaled gratification of the sinful desire that dwells in every heart. Cloaked in the erodite and lofty vernacular of "science", evolutionary dogma - I use that term deliberately - stands tall, a formidable foe that would ridicule and devour any who oppose it. It might not be too much of a stretch to call evolution as a worldview the noetic "Tower of Babel" of our age.
You remind me very much of a ficitious character created by Winston Churchill, in his 1914 work "The Inside of the Cup". I have the 1916 reprint, in good condition for an 89-year-old book. It describes the long journey of a bright young Espicopalian rector in the American midwest from stauch biblical orthodoxy to theological liberalism. He mentions the names you've brought up that had lived when Churchill wrote the book - implying that his theological instructors viewed them as threats and exhorted students to stay away from their works. Forbidden fruit. Essentially, Hodder (the main character) moves toward the social gospel and away from preaching the truth in love. He performs many a good work, and sees and later combats much misery created by his most wealthy and influential parishiner, Eldon Parr.
To sum up, the Creationist's starting point is the assumption that God's Word is absolutely true and trustworthy. We may not have a perfect grasp on it (due to sin, and therefore limitations on our observation), but we accept it on faith, pray for illumination from the Holy Ghost, and build our base of knowledge within that framework.
The naturalist's starting point is man, and his observation, which you and I have agreed is limited. Starting with man alone will lead one to the existential despair that has so come to characterize our age. "Anything goes". In not assuming God's existence, he pulls the rug under the very criteria for the truths he seeks to establish; in a most unusual paradox, he unwittingly "borrows" from the Christian worldview while seeking to destroy it.
I will freely admit the Creation view is less satisfying than its counterpart. There is nothing to puff us up. It is the view that humbly says, "Thy ways, O Lord, are not our ways; thy thoughts are not our thoughts". But it maintains the underpinning - the absolutes - required as reference point for truth. Pure atheistic naturalism does not, and theistic evolution contains (as stated in a previous post) irreconcileable antithesis within itself.
One theologian, Dr. Bavinck, said it this way:
"Any science, philosophy, or knowledge which supposes that it can stand on its own pretensions, and can leave God out of its assumptions, becomes its own opposite, and disillusions everyone who builds his expectations on it."
Teilhard de Chardin? Perhaps we are headed towards some evolutinary Omega Point. Then there is the fact that in the section of the brain called the "reptilian cortex" we still are "red in tooth and claw" as we sleep into the deeper unconsciousness. And when we awake and see the horrors we've created we're tempted to believe in an atavistic DEvolution. Perhaps Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were right -- all truth is subjective -- even that Objective Truth that we subjectively call transcendant and universally valid. At this point I'm beginning to feel like St. Paul when he was told by the Athenians that "learning has made you mad."
Then perhaps you will belabor the part about all truth being subjective, Clergyman, and your fondness for Teilhard des Chardins and his big egg world view and idolatrous love of Gaia.