I agree with you on the authority, inspiration, and inerrancy of Scripture.

I’m not advocating human death before the fall; only animal death before the fall, a topic on which the Scriptures are completely silent (and a topic on which young-Earth creationists are very vocal).

If we are not created, there was no fall, thus no necessity for redemption, and surely no need to be raised from the dead, and thus our faith is in vain. — One could be a theistic evolutionist and still affirm this statement.

My Scriptural proof however that death must not have preceded the fall is this: Christ died and rose from the dead of which the 4 Gospels testify and of which also nearly the rest of the New Testament proclaims.

As a scientist, you would do well to listen to your very own field which has found that its own observations are quite imperfect. Not only that, but as we find in the study of quantum physics, the very act of observation affects the result… even the very substance of what is being observed. Ultimately, science must be ministerial to Scripture, serving it, but not being its master.

The Gospel is such (as it is based on fact and not an ideology), that if one part were to be found to be not true, the whole thing unravels (not to cause a crisis of faith for any readers). One aspect of this is the scientifically absurd notion of the resurrection of the dead. Another, just as absurd from a scientific perspective (at least by popularity vote), is the creation. It is (to use an annoying term of those in the ID camp) irreducibly complex. If we are not created, there was no fall, thus no necessity for redemption, and surely no need to be raised from the dead, and thus our faith is in vain. But, just as Christ is risen, so to can we be assured of the Scriptural account (not a twisted perversion that makes science or reason lord over Scripture) of creation is in fact true.

Which passage about Adam, sin, and death says anything about animals? Which passage forbids evolution? I gave one that infers processes being involved in the creation of life.

You say that the LCMS has no stance on the age of the Earth, but then you seem to insist on a literal six calendar-day creation.

As I said, I have a lot of respect for the LCMS (at least the Issues Etc wing). Lutheranism has a rootedness and Christ-centeredness that is at times absent from evangelicalism. As a scientist, however, I see the LCMS ties to young-Earth creationism as a problem.

With respect.

As I am not a spring of income any free resources would be appreciate. I can google search myself however I would appreciate being directed to a resource that has been analyzed by someone that has a grasp of both views and appreciates a resource as being accurate in the analysis of both sides.

In Christ,

Joey

To me, the LCMS stance on creation is an unfortunate obstacle, and Biblically an unnecessary one as well.

I see what you are saying when it comes to human death, but young-Earth creationism applies this to animal death as well, even though none of the relevant passages (Gen 3, Rom 5, Rom 8, 1 Cor 15) say anything whatsoever about animal death.

Likewise, the creation passage says nothing that would prohibit biological evolution. Some portions even imply processes rather than fiat creation, such as Gen 1:24, which says, “And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds’” (ESV). The current trend among young-Earthers is to advocate a rate of biological evolution after the Flood that would make an evolutionist blush.

In summary, the LCMS stance on evolution is going beyond what the Scriptures themselves say.