It seems like the overwhelming majority of Dispensationalist theologians today are Young Earth Creationists. However, this has not been the case historically as there have been many famous Old Earth Creationists in the Dispensationalist camp, including C.I. Scofield, author of the *Scofield Reference Bible*, who believed in the gap theory himself but expressly allowed for the day-age theory as a legitimate interpretation in the Reference Bible. More recently, I know that Norman Geisler was dispensationalist and Old Earth Creationist while opposing theistic evolution. **I am wondering whether there are any notable Dispensational theologians, pastors, or apologists, who would embrace theistic evolution instead of YEC or OEC.** I have not been able to find any. This makes sense given modern dispensationalism's emphasis on the plain reading of Scripture, but given that this wasn't always a principle of dispensationalism, it isn't categorically impossible for a dispensationalist to be a theistic evolutionist.

There is already a question focused on biblical arguments, *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/6908/61679* , but I found none focused on scientific reasons. According to creationists, are there scientific grounds for being skeptical of the view that God used Darwinian mechanisms to bring about the diversity of life we see today from a common ancestor? What are the main scientific arguments that creationists put forward to challenge [theistic evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution) ?

We read in Gen 1:31: God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day. By human standards, certificate of excellence in relation to something made, is given by a third party which assesses the product independently or in consultation with the manufacturer. Going by Gen 1: 26 ( "Let us make man in our image ") the entire Trinity was involved in Creation . Genesis does not record if God consulted anyone say, the Angels, in the assessment of Creation. How do Creationists address this issue ? Do the Theistic- evolutionists have something to say from their perspective ?

Creationists, if I understand it correctly, claim that the genes for Vitamin C production got corrupt in monkeys and humans independently after the Fall of Man (whenever the Fall of Man might be: Young-Earth Creationists believe that was thousands of years ago, Old-Earth Creationists believe it was hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of years ago). But there seems to be an easy way to prove that wrong: if that were true, we would expect there to be different mutations preventing the monkey's liver and the human's liver from producing Vitamin C. But, in reality, it's the same mutation in both monkeys and humans. So, what do creationists think, why is that reasoning faulty?

Human beings are trichromats meaning that they have three color receptors in the eye which enable them to see all seven colours of sunlight. Animals are dichromats meaning that they have only two colour receptors, which restrict their color vision. For instance a human being can easily see a tiger with bright orange colour fur lurking at a distance against green foliage in daylight. On the other hand, deer and other animals which are blind to red-green , can hardly spot the same tiger. Evolutionists fail to explain why nature has given colors to the animals if most of them are sensitive only to a limited spectrum of colors. My question is: How do Creationists interpret the faculty of color perception available to human beings vis- a- vis that available to other living beings.