Sorry, but he’s talking about stuff that’s way over my head and I still didn’t hear anything about the reason the LCMS rejects theistic evolution, though it’s clear he is talking about the rejection of evolution (while admitting that there are some points for evolution).
Anyway I apologize for taking up so much of your time.
Hey, no problem! Let me see if I can help make the case a bit clearer for you. Here's an overview:
We have two sides: (1) God's Word, and (2) the theory of macroevolution. They say different things about the origin of the world. Christianity assumes that there is a God. Macroevolution theory assumes that there is no God.
God's Word
To use only one example, God's Word says that Adam was the first human on the earth. He was created by God directly and was a real person, not a symbolical figure. The Bible treats Adam as a real person in multiple accounts.
Reference: Genesis 1-5, 1 Chronicles 1:1, Hosea 6:7, Luke 3:23-38, Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Timothy 2:13-14, Jude 1:14-15. See also our Lord's words in Matthew 19:3-6.
The theory of macroevolution
This is a theory that has an underlying assumption that there is no God. It's a theory that assumes that the universe has the power and will to create itself out of nothing, and to sustain and develop itself with remarkable precision, which I argue is essentially Pantheism. Pantheism is contrary to the Bible and is the belief that the universe itself is "god". This is the assumption that most secular people today operate under.
To use the same example as the above, advocates of macroevolution say that mankind had a slow and gradual development. In other words, according to this belief, Adam was not the first human on earth.
These two views are incompatible
One belief assumes God, and the other assumes no God, or more accurately, it assumes that the universe itself is a kind of "god".
Theistic evolution
This is an attempt to harmonise the two sides, namely, God's Word and the theory of macroevolution. But the problem with this view is that by attempting to harmonise or combine the two, you'll end up with something true to neither, but something new — a third belief. This is what theistic evolution theory is.
Dr. Doyle's argument
What Doyle first emphasised is how theistic evolution theory is not in line with what God's Word says. Then he went on to discuss different claims of people who hold to macroevolution and then challenged those views.
Conclusion
The point is this: Doyle's arguments against the theory of macroevolution are arguments against theistic evolution. When he highlights the problems with macroevolution as a Professor in Biology and as a Christian, he's highlighting the problems with the theory of theistic evolution. As a scientist, his emphasis is on scientific evidence. And what I always stress is that this discussion goes beyond science — it's really a discussion of philosophy and religion, not hard science. That is, for Christians and people who believe in the theory of macroevolution, whether they be Christian, agnostic, atheist or whatever, the origin of the world is a matter of faith to us all. The creation account is an article of faith, and to treat it as anything other than that I think often invites division. Therefore, it's not honest to say that theistic evolution is a fact.
Hope this helps! Blessings.