The problem for any Positive apologetics using evolution is the philosophical baggage that it drags along. Not to mention a kind of authoritarianism that i am not convinced Science as a stream deserves when making historical claims.
Are evolutionary depictions of history Robust and accurate? When we compare christian claims of the historical truth of the resurrection vis a vis Evolutionary claims with respect to history, there is a stark difference between the quality of the claims.
Christian claims are related to absolute Truths with a capital T.
Evolutionary claims about history depend on things like inductive reasoning, materialist assumptions,parsimony,statistics, Bayesian probability etc. These need not be factually true. For example, the evolutionary claim is not that Dinosaurs existed at the particular time in history. Its that Dinosaurs evolved from earlier species. The claim is the tree of life for Dinosaurs… That’s far from being a Truth claim with an absolute T.
Its the kind of reasoning that is problematic. If we reason using the historical facts of Jesus Resssurrection using the same methodology used in the evolutionary science. The one conclusion that is impossible to come to… is the Resurrection.
So in real life, it becomes important to deny perceived truth claims of evolution. (with a capital T)… involving the power of Epicurean chance + time. And evaluate a larger implied claim of some scientists, that questions of origins can be answered in a satisfactory manner using the scientific method. The questions people ask are often orthogonal to the answers scientists give… yet somehow, the philosophy that gives meaning to the"scientific answers" is ofte not scrutinized.
Bigger Questions i find myself asking are -
is something true just because a Peer reviewed paper claims it is?
How trust worthy is “established science” in historical matters?
How trust worthy are scientists when they make public claims about reality?
To what extent do philosophical assumptions create a bias in scientific conclusions?
Are claims that are presented as a result of the scientific method actually the result of the scientific method?
To what extent is the current Scientific consensus the result of reproducible science?
End of the day, i am yet to see a theological view that completely accepts the claims of evolutionary science that does not downgrade the inerrancy of scripture or cut God down to Size from the glorious creator we see in the bible to an invisible undetectable diety. And if one downsizes God, One Downsizes Jesus also.