Something which is clear, however, is that our culture does affect how biologically "successful" we are, both as individuals and as groups. That means that culture needs to be part of our model of biological evolution. And as we seek to work this out, the complexities, of course, multiply.
In this research paper, I will contrast the ideas and arguments from both creationism and evolutionism and then take an educated side using my knowledge.
B. We give up some clarity about exactly when and where the Fall of Mankind happened. We do not give up the idea of a literal Fall. Although some theistic evolutionists may contend that the literal Fall is collective, there is ample room and reason to contend that the Fall happened to a single pair of historical individuals named Adam and Eve in a place called the Garden of Eden.
A. We give up the Literal Day theory, unless one accepts the Appearance of Age variation on that theory. Although the Literal Day theory is understandably popular in fundamentalist circles, I have shown elsewhere in this essay by references to Scripture that it is not the only viable theory. The Literal Day theory is one interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis. I am committed to the Bible, but not to a single interpretation of it. We do not give up the authority of the Bible!
So - theistic evolution does not fit the definition of a compromise because we don't have to give up anything that is truly of value to our faith. Now let's look at what we gain.
A number of scientists, including Stephen Jay Gould, have suggested that mankind is an accident of evolution, that we arrived here by chance. If pre-history had gone a little differently, perhaps dolphins or elephants would be ruling the earth right now. His former student Kurt Wise argues in his review of Gould's book (1989), that this view is a problem for Christians who would accept evolution. I reject both Gould's suggestion and Wise's corollary, and I base my rejection upon other events recorded in Scripture. It is indeed a problem, but it has an answer.
I have concern for those people who have built their Christian beliefs partly on Jesus Christ and partly on what the young-earth creationists claim. Suppose they come across some transitional fossils, and the fossil sequence looks pretty convincing. Suppose some graduate student discovers a faster or more probable mechanism for mutated evolution, and it seems scientifically reasonable. Suppose NASA finds evidence of past life on Mars. Will their faith be shaken? Will the collapse of that belief pillar undermine the whole? I have encountered two individuals on the Internet who abandoned their Christian faith while investigating and debunking the claims of young-earth creationism. That's sad.
If you don't believe me, look these things up for yourself. You should, anyway, whether you believe me or not! Go to the library and look up the references that a young-earth creationist cites. Examine the original context, and judge for yourself whether important information is omitted, and if the creationist has quoted the source fairly, accurately, and completely. Judge whether the original meaning has changed. Do some searches on the Internet. You can begin with the references that I have included with this essay. On the Internet you will have to learn to discern the truth among a large number of competing claims. That's an important responsibility. Take the time to discern well. Remember that the number of repetitions and verbal volume don't make truth. Get started now.
I have investigated the assertions and theories of young-earth creationists. A disturbing thing about these claims is that a great many of them include poorly researched statements, or misquotes of mainstream or evolutionist sources that distort the original author's meaning. Christians must be above reproach when rightly handling the word of truth. It is bearing false witness to misrepresent another person's position, or to attack an obsolete or contrived version of a theory. It is bearing false witness to misquote someone so that it distorts the meaning of the original source. It is bearing false witness to ignore observations that don't fit the original hypothesis. It does not matter what is the cause being served. A point made with false information is not a point at all. In a trial witnesses are sworn in with the words, "Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" Scholarship, science, and Christians witness demand no less than legal proceedings. The Truth of the Bible does not need falsehoods to defend it.
I don't have much interest in changing the minds of self-described creationists on the matter of evolution and creation, although they seem to have a great interest in changing mine. Christian creationists are saved. I fully expect to see them in Heaven when we get there. I expect that they will have a few surprises when God reveals to them everything about His creation of the universe. I expect to have some surprises myself! But those are questions for God when we sit on His lap and He holds us tightly in His almighty loving arms. We will just have to wait. John 3:16 states the formula for being saved, and it says nothing concerning one's ideas about creation.
Creationists ask why God would choose in evolution a method of creation that involves scarcity, death, and the struggle for survival. My response is that nature is "red in tooth and claw" whether the theory of evolution is true or not. Scarcity, death, and struggle are not inherently the fault of evolution. Out of those apparently bad things, God uses evolution to produce great good and abundance of life. This is a Biblical theme. As Christian biologist Kenneth Miller has pointed out, evolution makes it inevitable that somewhere in the universe, some day, there would arise a creature capable of knowing God and loving Him in return. We are that creature. So the answer to the original question is: God chose evolution as a method for creation because He likes to bring forth good things from evil circumstances. Thanks be to God!