HughF: Philip began the OP with "if one is a Christian" before implying that belief in evolution was somehow un-Christian. My point was to demonstrate that "if one is a Christian" one is far more likely to believe in evolution than not, and that such a belief is entirely orthodox.
NO! I was NOT implying that belief in evolution is un-Christian. What I asserted very clearly was that if one wants to assert that Adam and Eve are the result of evolution, then that forces them to take certain non-literal views of foundational passages for the rest of Scripture, the need for a Savior, etc. It's also why I showed that the Creation-relate accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 may not be talking about the same creations of man - as the first could be mankind, the second would be the creation of Adam and Eve/Christ's line. That those two different accounts have been traditionally married by the Church doesn't mean they were meant to be. If you take the text ONLY at face value, for what it DOES say, but not what it doesn't, then, absolutely, the accounts could be different. And I can show you where some theologians agree. The earth was not the same as the Garden of Eden. In fact, the Garden was not the same as Eden - but it was IN Eden. However possible, that may or may not be true. So, a person could believe in the evolution of mankind, but NOT that Adam and Eve were products of evolution, nor that they were even connected to the original creation of mankind. Now, some theistic evolutionist Christians DO believe Adam and Eve were products of evolution - but if they believe that, they must also view the accounts of their creations as only allegorical - which opens a theological can of worms.
One's views of evolution and Creation have absolutely nothing to do with determining whether or not one is a Christian. If one has put their faith in Christ, that person IS a Christian. Period!
Hugh: Philip's little whimsy about the two Genesis creation stories both being literally true is entertaining, but as he is no more than 'a guy in a little hat', 'but one man with an opinion', why should anyone pay him heed, unless he has some other justification for his views?
Hugh, this is not just my opinion - it's also the opinion of some very knowledgeable theologians, based ONLY upon what the texts would allow for. That view presents some challenges - just like all of the Creation view do - and just like all of them, none of them are provable. I'm not the one that presented the Pope's view, AS IF his should be any more authoritative than yours, mine or anyone's.