It would not affect my faith but if the foundation of your belief is that the Bible is literally true, it would upset your faith in the Bible.
Yes, obviously if you believe the Bible is 100% literal, than anything that says Adam and all the animals that ever were were simply poofed into existence and brought to Adam for naming, and then God took his rib to make him a wife, then yea, Evolution doesn't really jive with that.
Of course if you believe the Bible is at all times 100% literal, basically the fossile record destroys this notion with or without evolution... as Millions of animals existed long before man walked the earth, so it would have been impossible for Adam to have been brought all of them for naming.
Like I said, only Atheists and Radical Fundamentalists are the ones that argue that evolution is in conflict with God.
Remember, Science at its BEST can only answer "HOW" God works or has worked in the Universe, it does not answer, and can never answer "WHY". Spirituality is about WHY... Science is about HOW.
Not according to Matchett-PI, since his contention is that there is enough sloppiness in Genesis to accomodate both an old earth and a recently created earth, as the following quote from one of his posts on this thread demonstrates:
It is likely that scientific research in the next ten or twenty years will tip the weight of evidence decisively toward either a young earth or an old earth view, and the weight of Christian scholarly opinion (from both biblical scholars and scientists) will begin to shift decisively in one direction or another.
This should not cause alarm to advocates of either position, because the truthfulmess of Scripture is not threatened our interpretations of Genesis 1 have enough uncertainty that either position is possible). Both sides need to grow in the knowledge of the truth, even if this means abandoning a long-held position.
Presumably, Matchett-PI would also concur with the idea that there is enough sloppiness in Genesis to accomodate evolution as well.