"absolutely no way" "patently ridiculous theory of evolution"?
Richard Rubenstein, professor of conflict resolution and public affairs at George Mason University, and author of `When Jesus Became God' (a Publishers Weekly Best Religion book) Harvard graduate, Oxford University, Rhodes scholar and Harvard law school--and thousands of other learned people--might question your imperative, categorical statement on an ontological, teleological or cosmological basis, as you wish.
From his latest book, "Aristotle's Children, Harcourt Inc., 2003, page 298:
"Reason could transform the earth, if only science and technology were inspired and guided by a new global morality. Faith would expand and mature, if only the world's religions addressed themselves to the long-term trends in society and nature, and helped create that global majority. And--since the split between faith and reason divides each of us against himself--we could become more loving and useful to each other and more satisfied with ourselves, if only we could integrate these fundamental aspects of our being."
I suppose as sentient beings with an understanding of right and wrong, we will still probably continue trading shots like: 'Intelligent Design' is a pseudo-science for crackpots, or that evolution--as far as it goes, hard science--is "wishful thinking", instead of attempting to advance cogently to our Maker our claim to return to the garden and eat from that other tree, the Tree of Life.
FRaternally, OK
Our Maker clearly laid out how he created the universe. It wasn't gradually through evolution. Genesis said he did it suddenly. Clearly, we don't know all of the details, but it's clear the two theories are compatible if you ignore all the detailos and decide that they're both "in different areas". They're not. They both attempt to explain how we got here. One says God was intimately involved. The other claims either he doesn't exist or wasn't intimately involved. They are mutually exclusive.