The THEORY of evolution does not preclude the fact of God. They are not mutually exclusive ideas.
The problem is that we have no way to understand the concept of eternity.
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.
Theory is the highest level of proof in science. Newton’s Laws of Motion were corrected by Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.
Darwin at 22 after leaving Christ’s College, Cambridge, and previously raised in a Unitarian environment, jumped upon the opportunity to join a an evangelical trip abroad on the converted brig ship, the Beagle, to return Christianized natives to Tierra Del Fuego circa 1832, personally financed by his father’s 400 pound annual allowance and labeled himself a self-financed gentleman’s companion to the 26 year old Captain.
The Christian communities at that time believed in the harmony of science and theology, but sought to explain Scripture based upon science, rather than science upon the Providence of God. Cambridge considered his findings more heretical than scientific a he definitely lacked the prior academic background to be considered a postgraduate student at the time. Many of his assertions for transmutation were within several years pointed out as improper identification of well known species and improper labeling, rather than ancient evolutionary evidence.
The consequence of begging the question, placing science before God, simply seeks to justify its premise by reasserting its premise, placing the Creation before the Creator.
Are you saying God was incapable to create as revealed?
The problem is that we have no way to understand the concept of eternity.
According to Darwinist William Provine and conservative Evangelicals one cannot correctly hold both views.
“Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with deterministic principles or chance. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable. The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.” William B. Provine, “Progress in Evolution and Meaning in Life,” in Evolutionary Progress, ed. Matthew H. Nitecki (University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 65
Are you certain about that? William Provine prior to his despatch was a leadin spokesman for Darwinism. Here is just one of his many quotes on the subject.
“Of course, it is still possible to believe in both modern evolutionary biology and a purposive force, even the Judaeo-Christian God. One can suppose that God started the whole universe or works through the laws of nature (or both). There is no contradiction between this or similar views of God and natural selection. But this view of God is also worthless…. [Such a God] has nothing to do with human morals, answers no prayers, gives no life everlasting, in fact does nothing whatsoever that is detectable. In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and, indeed, all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.
“My observation is that the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists now are atheists or something very close to that. Yet prominent atheistic or agnostic scientists publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion. Rather than simple intellectual dishonesty, this position is pragmatic. In the United States, elected members of Congress all proclaim to be religious. Many scientists believe that funding for science might suffer if the atheistic implications of modern science were widely understood.” William B. Provine, review of Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution, by Edward J. Larson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985, 224 pp.), Academe, vol. 73 (January/February 1987), pp. 51-52 Provine was Professor of History of Biology, Cornell University