I'm not implying that your point is the latter, merely pointing out that the former is a ridiculous, wholly unsupported statement.
You can't really sit back and say that whatever I believe has to be wrong because it conflicts with what you believe.
And if that's what I were doing, we would be in agreement. However, I am not telling you that what you believe (i.e. that evolution does not occur, that if it does, it "genuinely repudiates the existence or relevance of true morality"), is wrong because it conflicts with what I believe, but what you believe is wrong because it is not supported by facts or by logic.
Which conclusions did I declare in need of change simply because they conflicted with the Bible?
You believe evolution cannot be true, and the earth cannot be more than a few thousand years old, because you believe the Bible tells you otherwise. You can hem an haw at it all you like, but that's essentially what your position amounts to. Own it.
The real pity is in you thinking science actually supports an eons-ancient earth.
Have you ever taken an earth sciences course? How about geology? Astronomy? Anthropology? Archeology? Could you please point out which of those fields supports the notion that the earth is only a few thousand years old? Because unless the textbooks have changed significantly since the time I was an undergraduate, those fields are all pretty confirm that the earth is far, far older than a few thousand years old.
Cripes, I can't believe its 2009 and I'm arguing with an adult that thinks the world is six thousand years old. And people wonder why India and China are going to eat us alive in the next generation.