Evangelicals tend to be the least likely category for embracing evolution, and here’s why: The acceptance of evolution and potential rejection of Adam and Eve can require more changes than just how one reads Genesis 1; it could result in a rewriting of the idea of original sin. It can affect the evangelical narrative. Without the sinful nature acquired by a real Adam, how does one engage the problem of evil and the necessity of the work of Jesus? Does this nullify the evangelium or “good news” of the Bible?
That is the issue, isn’t it? That one considers their narrative as untouchable, so that they will go to great strides to insure that no facts which may undermine it comes close to it. I have many issues with this. First, it is not intellectually honest. Second, it requires that one infer upon Scripture that person’s subjective viewpoint. While I would like to always uphold Christian Tradition, there are times which we need a correction. For instance, the correction of women ministers. Or as the correction we saw in the Reformation. Christian Tradition, and contrary to some, there is no evidence that the New Testament writers were Young Earth Creationists, has been able to embrace a wide range of theological ideas, even about Genesis. If we are to follow our words, and indeed, the mantras of our forebearers, then we should return to the sources. If those sources show that, and I believe that they do, that Genesis does not speak about naturalistic origins, then we should not be so desperate as to hold on to our narratives, especially if it is not God’s narrative.
For those interested only in canonical theology, you should read Genesis 1 next to Isaiah. Just saying….