I would agree that the most common error in the dialog between science and theology is on the misunderstanding of evolution, its evidence and its shortcomings.
Those on the religious side discount all of evolution’s points based on an interpretation of Genesis which is uncompromisingly literal when a compelling argument can be made that much of it is beautifully poetic and symbolic.
Those on the science side exploit the layman’s knowledge of most people to try and extrapolate from evidence conclusions that simply don’t follow. Lawrence Krauss does this continually with physics. It’s ridiculous to pretend evolution is some airtight theory that disputes God. It has many deep problems, and things it can’t explain, like the puzzling Cambrian explosion.
You also have that origin of life question. Over time, mathematicians have found that the spontaneous creation of life on earth is so improbable, you’d be surprised how many scientists genuinely believe life on earth was seeded by aliens.
“seeded by aliens” just pushes the problem to another planet.
Thank you for a well thought out response. I think in our post-modern society can’t get past Genesis 1:1.
Interesting in the video Comfort mentions micro-biology is observable. I think we all agree because there is evidence. The changes of ‘kind’ is what he beats on. Then he shifts the interview to the “morals” of evolutionists. The part about the drowning dog and neighbor was telling. All those students chose to save the dog instead of the neighbor.
If you had time to see the video, Comfort entered with an ID approach. Meaning what we observe requires a designer.
One of the best modern era Christian philosophers was Francis Schaeffer. His ministry focused on big international university intelligentsia. Schaffer when confronted with the Genesis account would remind people that The Bible is God’s revelation to mankind. It is not a complete revelation by God of His complete Nature and Power. Schaffer went as far as to say most would argue what God revealed may not be the best answer they are looking for. In the second breath, he would then tell them, but it is the only answer.
Another point. God communicated Genesis in a very concrete language using a vocabulary for a nomadic people. I think if a dedicated scientist looked deeper into the text they might be surprised at what they find.